Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

1/4/01 10:17:09 PM, "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

>YJ said she would define consensus as majority vote. 
>I would propose a slightly more demanding standard - say three fifths. But ultimately I accept the fact that we're going to disagree about things. The 
pursuit of consensus, which in my book (and I worked with the Quakers in anti-draft activity) means unanimity, or at least the unwillingness of anyone to 
block action by the rest of the group.
>Not an attainable goal in this context, in my opinion.

I concur completely with Milton Mueller in this regard.  The best mechanism to determine general "consenus" within a WG is quite likely to suscribe to 
majority vote.  Where the consensus should lie is in the framing of the questions put to a vote, insofar as possible.  We should generally agree on what 
the issues are, how we vote is totally at our discretion.  Thus, the outcome of any polling is binding on the group as a whole, since we (for the most part) 
agreed on the questions.  I should add that a simple majority of say 51% may not be an adequate representative figure and I would consider Milton's 
suggestion of a 3/5 standard more realistic.    

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.



--
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