RE: [wg-d] Silence (Was: Streamlining Voting)

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

It is also a multicultural issue.  It is very hard, especially in a large
group, to get some people to object to anything.  They are just brought up
to think that this is a very impolite thing to do.

We saw this in Singapore.  Therefore silence = assent, while a truism in
some contexts, is perhaps not how we should pursue things here.

Antony

+-----Original Message-----
+From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Bret
+A. Fausett
+Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 1:00 PM
+To: wg-d@dnso.org
+Subject: [wg-d] Silence (Was: Streamlining Voting)
+
+
+>The issue of silence, and what it means in this process.
+
+When everyone is in a room together and you're sure they've heard the
+message and had an open microphone to respond, I can understand the basis
+for giving silence some meaning. Especially when the way the issue is
+raised is to ask for objections.
+
+In the online world, people go on vacation, they get overwhelmed with
+work and e-mail backs up, and you can never be sure that list members
+have actually read or thought about the issues under consideration.
+
+When we're moving forward a discussion or a draft, I would think it
+acceptable to view an absence of criticism as some sign that the group is
+moving in the right direction and should continue. There's really no
+other way, that I can see, of working in an online group.
+
+But when the work is done, I think approval should be based on
+affirmative votes, yes or no. If anything, silence at that point should
+mean that the WG member is unavailable or has lost interest in the issue.
+
+      -- Bret
+