Re: [ga] Consensus

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 07:46 PM 7/17/2001 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
[snip]
>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).


         Well, actually, near as I can tell, you and to a lesser extent 
Jason Graff are the *only* people who have argued against the merits of the 
motion (though Joanna Lane proposed a wording change); among those who have 
posted, the rough consensus on the merits seems apparent.

         The procedural matter is another thing.  A variety of folks have 
urged that we need to have a formal vote here.  (Joanna has suggested "an 
informal POLL" on ga-rules "whether to continue the process through to the 
stage where we can definitively say the wording is agreed, then forward to 
the DNSO Secretariat to wait in a queue for a VOTE, or we can defer all 
further DEBATE until such time as a VOTE can be taken, knowing that it will 
still require a further 2 weeks prior to a VOTE of the entire GA" (caps in 
original).)  It may be that, given the current state of the ga, we just 
can't follow the "rough consensus" approach of RFC 2418; that the members 
will not recognize any informal decision as legitimate, so that nothing can 
be decided without the full trappings of a full-scale, formal vote.  If so, 
I think it's a shame, though -- it's testimony to the dysfunctionality of 
this body, and yet another obstacle to accomplishing any actual work.

Jon

--
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