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

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Thank you for clarifying that Kent. I agree these email lists are the worst
way I've ever seen to conduct a meeting of any sort. I would expect the time
frame in a face to face meeting would be several hours. In a forum or
newsgroup atmosphere, several days. In a list like this, several weeks.
January 15th looms above us and it doesn't look like an extension has been
accepted.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.VirtualAdFirm.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
To: "wg Review list" <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Confusion between majority vote and consensus


> 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
>

--
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