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

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 14 August 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:


>On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 12:59:55PM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
>[...]
>> 
>> 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.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this -- in particular, what you mean 
>by "silence".
>
>In my research concerning Roberts Rules, I came across the following:
>
>  "SILENCE IS ASSENT"
>
>  "Those members who do not vote agree to go along with the decision of 
>  the majority through their silence."
>
>(This is not a statement of policy; it is a statement of fact about
>Roberts Rules.) A further explanation was given elsewhere: basically,
>you can't force people to vote.  This is, of course, even more true 
>on mailing lists.

Actually, Kent, this isn't exactly what they mean.  They are not 
literally saying "Every person who does not cast a vote should be
considered to have agreed for the purposes of determining the final
vote".  Instead, they are saying, "Those who do not vote have no
right to complain about the outcome, as they did not participate 
in the vote itself".

When there is someone who is present and does not vote during 
a formal vote, than person is said to have abstained, and abstentions
are not counted in the affirmative.

In fact, this illustrates the crux of the issue of silence:

Do we consider those who are silent as present, and unwilling to
voice their opinion, or do we consider them as absent, and unable
to voice their opinion?

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org