Re: [wg-c] consensus call results

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

At 12:18 PM 12/20/99 -0500, Rita M. Odin wrote:
>Jon,
>
>I hate to argue with you, but you did not include the 3 abstentions in
calculating the consensus.  There were 67 votes.  In order to have the 2/3
majority you need to meet your definition of rough consensus, you would
need 44.666 (rounded to 45) votes.  It looks like you are, in fact ,one
vote shy of reaching rough consensus.
>
>
>Rita M. Odin
>Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
>202/857-8927
>odinr@arentfox.com


	With respect, I'm pretty sure that's not right.

	1. The first issue to consider is the relevance of the fact that many of
the WG did not vote at all.  As RFC 2418 recognizes, that's the usual
situation, and not a bar to a finding of consensus:  "most people
subscribed to mailing lists do not actively participate in discussions on
the list.  [Accordingly, it] is left to the discretion of the working group
chair how to evaluate the level of consensus."

	2. I think the abstainers are properly lumped with the non-voters.  I
gather that each of the abstainers had been asked to take sides in this
vote.  They were sending messages explaining why they were declining to do
so.  Rita's approach would have the effect of making the abstainers' votes
identical, for vote-counting purposes, to NO votes.  But that surely wasn't
the abstainers' intention -- rather, they were explaining why they did
*not* want to play any role in the debate at this time.

	3. To Eva, YJ and Raul:  If my discussion above diverges from your
intentions, please let me and the list know posthaste.  In particular, if
any of you voted to abstain with the intention that your vote be counted in
the vote tally denominator (so that it had the procedural effect of a NO
vote), please let me know and I'll so treat it.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com
----------------------------
>>>> Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> 12/18/1999 8:01:32 PM >>>
>	As Eric has already posted, the final tally was 44 YES votes to 20 NO.  A
>few thoughts:
>
>	1. This surmounts the preannounced 2/3 barrier for rough consensus, and it
>allows us to continue work.  We've got a lot of work left to do, Lord
>knows.  But our process for doing it is simply that we reach points of
>rough consensus one by one, and after settling each one we move on to the
>next.  We surely haven't "settled" the 6-10 point in the sense that
>everyone in the group is convinced of the rightness of that position, and
>we don't have consensus in the sense of unanimity.  But as in Working Group
>B, our vote has shown a sufficient (2/3) weight of opinion behind the 6-10
>position to allow us to treat the issue as settled for purposes of the WG,
>and to move on to the rest of the issues we have before us.
>
>	2. FWIW, five members of the NC voted in their individual capacity as
>members of the WG.  Their tally was 3 YES (Kleiman, Lindsay, Stubbs) to 2
>NO (Chicoine, Sheppard).
>
>	3. I think it's really important to recognize that we're *not* all of one
>mind on these issues, and that there's a substantial minority within the WG
>who believe (or fear) that we're going down the wrong path.  This process
>will work only if we all find a way to reach out and find common ground.
>If we just bull forward, each of us convinced of the rightness of his or
>her views and unwilling to recognize the force of his opponents', we'll fail.
>
>	4. In my note last week, I indicated that after we got through with this
>vote, I wanted to move on to some informal straw polling on the
>non-profit/for-profit issue.  A list member has suggested to me, off-list,
>that it would be better to wait to do that until after we'd received the
>public comments on the interim report.  Absent objection, I'm happy to wait.
>
>Jon
>
>
>