Re: [ga] silence in RROR v. PAB

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 12:46:17PM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 
> Kent claims that in RROR, silence=assent.
> 
> Kent is wrong.
> 
> In RROR (and in the rules I proposed), silence=acceptance of will of
> the majority.

In *neither* RROR *or* the rules you propose *or* the PAB rules 
does "silence=acceptance of the will of the majority".  Instead, in ALL 
THREE CASES silence means acceptance of the result of the vote among 
those who voted.  That's what "silence=assent" MEANs".  That is what is 
specified in the PAB rules.

> In PAB (stop insisting I didn't read the rules, Kent.  I did.  Several
> times.  Closely.

Then your reading skills are woefully inadequate.  Note the following 
quote:

  "If 67% or more of the Voting PAB Members are in favor of the
  proposition being voted upon, the proposition shall have passed..."

Note that it says "Voting PAB Members".  That means "those who voted"....

[I should point out that the PAB charter references a separate document 
for the voting protocol:  http://songbird.com/pab/voting.html]

[...]

> There is an incredible difference between the two.  As someone capable
> of writing code, Kent should easily recognize this distinction.
> Anyone capable of grasping simple math should also see the difference.

Since you apparently are not capable of grasping simple English, I don't
think you should be casting aspersions on my mathematical abilities :-)

> For whatever reason (political or personal) he sees fit to insist
> there is no difference.  He is quite wrong.  Prove it to yourself:
> 
> Imagine 20 people.  They are voting on question X.
> 
> 6 vote no, 4 vote yes, 10 abstain (i.e., are silent).
> (the 6 no votes are the majority of ballots cast)
> 
> Under my proposal:

And under the PAB rules as well...

>   Question X fails, 6 to 4 against.  The 10 silent members are not
>   included in the tally, period.  The silent people gave up their
>   right to sway the vote by not participating.
>   Majority wins the vote.

More precisely "Majority of those voting wins the vote".  That's what 
is specified in the PAB rules as well.

> Under Kent's rules:

0) You clearly don't understand them, so I suggest you give up trying 
to explain them to anyone.

1) they aren't "Kent's rules"; they are the PAB rules, developed by a 
group, and polished through experience.

[...]
> 
> If you institute this rule, any body governed by it here will in all
> likelihood be stuffed with accounts from which nothing ever issues.
> These silent accounts will simply stuff the ballot box.  But you're
> familiar with that process, Kent.  You've already admitted publically
> to registering false accounts to these lists for the sole purpose of
> voting.

Mark, haven't you realized this yet:  I'm really Jeff Williams :-).


 
> It [rough consensus] will not work.  We have proof that it will not
> work.  It's been tried in the WGs and has been found to be lacking.

Here's a random quote from Jon Weinberg:

  "It seems to me (I said so then, too) that we ought to be able to make
  progress on reaching rough consensus within this framework, and that
  we can (and should) do so within the context of the 6-10 consensus. 
  I'm hopeful that that's ground on which we can move forward."

This demonstrates that IN FACT "rough consensus" is being actively
pursued.  We use votes as a tool on that path. 

*Many* people are confused about the nature of the WGs and the GA.  They
are *not* representative, decision-making bodies.  You mention the case
where people were wrangling over one vote in WG-C -- indeed that
happened, but that is fundamentally an expression of the same error you
are lost in -- that single vote didn't decide anything of significance. 
Ultimately, the output of that WG goes to the NC, and then possibly to
the Board, as input into a very complex decision process -- a process 
that includes inputs from a great many sources, some of them formal, 
some of them not.

I realize that there are people who would like to see ICANN's decisions 
made through a completely formal process, but that simply isn't the 
political reality.  

> Finally, please stop associating me with Joop's organization.  I quit
> a long time ago.

The point was, you can't look at a group from an external point of view
and say much about the internal conflicts.  PAB had a great many
internal conflicts, as did Joop's attempt at an organization.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain