Re: [wg-review] Confusion between majority vote and consensus

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 12:22:09AM -0800, Chris McElroy wrote:
> > That is, while policies are to be developed by consensus processes, some
> > of the internal processes of the NC are more rigidly constrained.  No
> > big deal.  There is a complex history as to why this particular
> > formulation was chosen, and why the NC was constrained to this schem by
> > the bylaws, but the details would probably bore folks.  They do not
> > really relate to the development of policies, and had to do with a
> > battle during the DNSO formation between the "strong NC" school and the
> > "weak NC" school.
> 
> By all means, Kent, bore us. How can the how the internal processes of the
> NC not be related to the development of policies?

The "strong NC" position was that the NC should be elected, and once
elected they would essentially do all the work of the DNSO -- policies
would be actually developed in the NC.  It was felt by this camp that
large groups communicating over email lists would never get anything
done (certainly there is lots of evidence of that), and that the only
way that the DNSO could ever hope to actually get any work done was
through a strong executive committee (aka the NC). 

The other camp favored a direct democracy, and at least some of them
explicitly favored inefficiency -- they felt that it was better if the
DNSO didn't actually formulate many policies, essentially operating on
"the best government is the least government" model.  

The end result, as usual, was a somewhat vague compromise.  The NC was
left with the role of "managing the consensus gathering process", which,
by the normal meaning of the words, means that the consensus gathering
process is something outside the NC: for example, when we say that a
manager *manages* a bunch of employees that manager doesn't normally do
the *work* of the employees. 

But in unusual circumstances, a manager may indeed do the work of an
employee under their management.  That is, the terminology is vague
enough to give the NC the power to produce documents on their own,
should the necessity arise.  However, in normal understanding of the
language used, the clear meaning is that the NC not normally do the work
of policy development. 

I use phrases like "normal understanding of the language used" because
there have been some seriously contorted interpretations of the language
in the bylaws.

> Isn't that like saying the
> way I was driving had nothing at all to do with the wreck?

No.  I view the internal processes of the NC more like the mechanism of
the car, not the driver.  The procedures concerned with consensus gathering 
are working group procedures, not NC procedures.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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