Re: [ga] Consensus

[Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>]

Jonathan Weinberg writes:
 >          For my own part, I think it would be desirable if we could follow 
 > the IETF approach Joe Kelsey cites.  Here's the relevant language from RFC 
 > 2418 (IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures):

I would be tempted to agree with you about adopting the IETF approach,
except for the fact that it does not apply in this particular
situation.  I do not know whether or not is is better to choose an
"easy" consensus or a "hard" consensus, but this is definitely a "hard"
consensus.  The vehemence of opposition is such that there are clearly
major problems with achieving a "rough" consensus here.  Both myself and
others have expressed grave doubts about both the method of forcing this
so-called consensus on the "rules" through the GA and with the actual
proposal (vague as it is).

I fully support the IETF model, but we are very far from that model at
this point in time.  You have cited pretty words about some vague
comments on the idea of "rough" consensus, but we are in dire need of
exact procedures at this moment in time in order to resolve this dispute
and move forward.  Vague, "rough" consensus will not serve us here.
Only a vote will.

/Joe
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html