Re: [wg-c-1] Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs

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

	I also support Kevin's suggestion.

	(This approach may end up emphasizing the "rough" in "rough consensus,"
since it will end up labelling as consensus the views of the majority where
the WG is split 61%-39%.   The fact is, though, that the WG needs *some*
way of reaching conclusions and this one seems to me as good as any, so
long as there is some mechanism for acknowledging minority views.)

Jon


Jon Weinberg
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
weinberg@msen.com

At 06:05 PM 7/13/99 -0500, dwmaher@ibm.net wrote:
>A constructive suggestion. I support it.
>David Maher

>At 04:13 PM 7/13/99 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>>Dear Readers,
>[clip]
>>The time has come for us to adopt an authoritative decisionmaking
mechanism.  
>>I'm going to posit the following approach:
>>
>>(1) Suggestions of consensus may be made by the Reporter with the
concurrence 
>>of either Chair, or by both Chairs concurrently, or by any five members of 
>>the WG.  
>>The suggester is responsible for expressing the topic of the suggested 
>>consensus in 
>>writing, and e-mailing the expression to the Reporter, who will assign the 
>>proposal a 
>>control number and post it under the topic "Consensus Call #XXX."  Messages 
>>posted 
>>to the list with this topic (or a confusingly similar topic) other than by 
>>the Reporter will be 
>>deleted, and persistent offenders are subject to suspension of authority to 
>>write to the 
>>list.
>>
>>(2) Such suggestions will be open to comment for a period of ten calendar 
>>days.  Members 
>>of the WG, in commenting on the suggestion, should express at the outset 
>>whether they do 
>>or do not concur that consensus exists.
>>
>>(3) At the close of the comment period, if more than three members of the
WG 
>>express the 
>>belief that consensus does not exist, or if the belief that consensus
exists 
>>is not more than 
>>twice as prevalent as the belief that it does not exist, then the 
>>Suggester(s) shall either 
>>re-submit their suggestion of consensus (to take into account comments from 
>>the WG) 
>>or request a votebot.  If a votebot is resorted to, then the activation of 
>>the votebot will be
>> publicized on the list by daily postings under the topic "Consensus Call 
>>#XXX - Votebot."  
>>Votebots shall be open for not less than one calendar week.  If the result 
>>of the votebot 
>>indicates that the suggestion is supported by not less than 60% of the WG 
>>members voting, 
>>then the suggestion shall be deemed to have been adopted.  Once adopted, 
>>suggestions 
>>of consensus shall be reconsidered upon concurrence of 60% of the
membership 
>>of the 
>>WG.
>>
>>(4) Elections (of chairs or other officers) shall be by simple majority.
>>
>>Kevin J. Connolly
>>
>><As usual, please disregard the silly trailer>
>>**********************************************************************
>>The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
>>and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
>>product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
>>and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
>>this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>>that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
>>munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
>>cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
>>at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
>>**********************************************************************
>
>
>