Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 01:37:38PM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >It is much simpler and cleaner to simply recognize that a rough
> >consensus does not exist, and work from there.  The whole point of 
> >"minority opinions" or "dissenting opinions" was to give a mechanism 
> >by which consensus could bifurcate without destroying the process.
> 
> Two comments/questions, related to each other, that I would add:
> 
> If consensus bifurcates, then we don't have consensus.

Hmm.  I didn't express that well.  The goal of the "dissenting
opinion" provisions was to work like this: when a unresolvable
disagreement is reached, you document the fact, and move on.  You
don't get consensus on the particular point, but you include both
alternatives, and get a higher level consensus that both alternatives
are presented.  As you point out, people may quibble over which is 
the majority, but that is something that *can* be resolved with a 
vote, if necessary:  "34 people voting favored alternative A; 35 
favored alternative B".  Note that votes like this don't decide anything 
-- they are straw polls intended to convey information the NC, 
which, as the body charged with "managing consensus", may remand the 
proposal to a different group, send it back, or even forward it to the 
Board with an indication that there was no clear consensus, and that the 
alternatives were such and so.

The important point is that the *process* of the WG remains a 
consensus process, though the result may not represent a consensus.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain