Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Eric wrote:
> 
> For the first time since its inception, a member of this WG has finally
> indetified a problem, documented why it is in fact a problem and recommended
> a solution.  Greg has based his position one one assumpiton:
> 
> >It currently appears that there has been no training or education <
> >in consensus process for members of the NC, for constituencies, or<
> >for WG chairs.                                                                  <
> 
> Does anyone feel that this is incorrect?

I certainly don't feel that Greg's position is incorrect. He's made a good
contribution here, no question.

As for the assumption, methinks their may be exceptions. The IETF and its
working groups have always aimed at "rough concensus and running code"
(though the haven't always axhieved it), so if anyone with a lot of IETF
experience (I think Karl, Harald, ...) claimed their practical experience
was at least as good as formal training, I'd be inclined to believe them.
there may be other exceptions I'm not aware of.

That said, the suggestion for "training or education in consensus process"
is an excellent one. This should definitely be one of our suggestions in
the report that emerges from this review.

In fact, that may not go far enough. If we're trying to run by consensus,
then the rules of order may be different than in a majority-rules system,
voting may be eliminated on some issues or have its function changed on
others, the function (if any) of constituencies is different, ... There
are a whole lot of questions here, some of them rather deep.

Thanks, Greg et al.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html