Re: [wg-d] Overview

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

>  I confess, though, that I'm a little confused about how this discussion
> fits into Bret's (extremely well done) report draft.  I wasn't a member of
> this WG when it did most of its work.  Reading Bret's report without
> preconceptions, it seems to set up a model of a WG that does *not* take
> consensus as its touchstone.  Rather, under sections 4.1-4.5, all disputed
> substantive issues within a WG seem to be decided by simple majority vote.
> To the extent that 4.7 contemplates that the WG can't issue a report
> without consensus , I'm not sure what the relationship is between that
> section and 4.1-4.5.  Am I missing something?

No, but you raise an issue for further discussion. There was some
"consensus" in the group that for a small group working asynchronously
online, voting would be easier and more precise, when necessary, than
determining consensus. The fact that WGs may vote and the NC looks for
consensus is not as disjointed as it might appear: WGs will be small and
may not necessarily be representative of the community.

Majority votes allow things to move forward, and then the public comment
period and NC review can determine whether there is community consensus
over the result.

I think that's the reasoning. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

       -- Bret