The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGERE: WG-C )

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

"Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com> 09/20/99 10:58AM wrote:
>
>On 17 September 1999, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> 	3. Javier and I have determined that, on the basis of the messages
>>> submitted to the list, the "6-10" proposal is supported by rough
>>> consensus.
>>
>>nice try.  but no.  it quite clearly was not.
>
>
>With all due respect Randy, I believe what the co-chair of the group is
>saying is that:  We, as co-chairs, have declared there is consensus on
>the issue.
>
>They are not saying:  We think this is the case, please give us your
>opinion.
>

What I find surprising is this: given the substantial number of members of
this WG who indicated they were not expressing substantive opinions one
way or the other pending the completion by WG-D of its work, the declaration
that rough consensus exists in this WG about *anything* is one which seems
to be completely without foundation.

I (and I suspect, at least some other members of the WG) have been staying
out of the discussion precisely because I did not wish to waste my time and that
of others until we knew what WG-D was going to recommend.  The actual end-
product of WG-D's process happens to strike me as kafkaesque; but for a
declaration of rough consensus to follow so quickly upon WG-D's zen determination
(zen, as in the infamous expression in Nihon-go, "zensho shimasu" :-))) brings
to mind the works, not of Kafka, but of Ionesco.

In other words, it's bad enough that the DNSO spun us around the way they did,
but for the chairmen of this WG to pronounce, promptly after WG-D announced
"Nevermind" in its best Emily LaTella voice, that a rough consensus exists about
anything, is to add insult to injury.  The question remains how many members of
this WG have grown horns on their noses, but I myself find I have this irrepressible
desire to go galloping about.

Kevin "Rhino" 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
**********************************************************************