Re: Consensus - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publiclyarchived

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>]

since I was CCed directly.....brief comment.

rough consensus is in some ways only practical when there is an underlying 
agreement about the goals of the organization.
in the IETF case, the underlying agreement includes "the Internet should 
work", and "decisions should be based on technical argument".
How we defend these underlying agreements is an interesting study.

it was something of an "aha" for me when someone pointed out that Robert's 
rules of order were not written for disagreements among friends, but in 
order to get work done in the face of entrenched enmity and total distrust 
of each other.

The Tao of IETF and Code of Conduct documents are probably the best 
pointers to the "rough consensus" idea.

What kind of environment has the GA proven to be?

               Harald



--On 11. august 2001 11:42 +0000 Roberto Gaetano <ga_list@hotmail.com> 
wrote:

> I concur with Bret's comment.
> Is there any disagreement to posting this concern as the concern of the
> GA  (which means that we keep the concept of consensus)?
> It will also be nice if the GA could come to an agreement on a definition
> of  consensus. If I remember correctly, the leading example we used in
> former  discussions on the subject was the IETF consensus-building
> process. Maybe Harald or Sandy can point to some RFCs that we can use to
> start with,  as soon as they are back from London.
> Incidentally, talking about Sandy, I like the "IETF Guidelines for
> Conduct"
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-poisson-code-04.txt), and
> I  would not mind using that draft as the basis for the GA's "code of
> conduct"  (mutatis mutandis, obviously). But this we can discuss another
> time.
>


--
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