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

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

I agree with the observation that when it comes to approval it should be
based on affirmative responses for the reasons pointed out.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Antony Van Couvering
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 2:30 PM
> To: wg-d@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-d] Silence (Was: Streamlining Voting)
>
>
> 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
> +
>