RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 04:00 AM 1/6/01, J J Teernstra wrote:
> >The WG-Review has observed that reaching a consensus within the DNSO was
> >basically hampered by the lack of definition and therefore of comon
> >understanding of what a DNSO consensus is and how it is determined.

Agreed.

>The solution is that this WG copies the way the NC determines consensus for
>its recommendations to the Board: raw voting power of 2/3 of the individual
>opinions present on this list determine WG consensus .
>
>I will put this proposed solution up for a Yes or No, so that we can go 
>forward.
>We need an agreed definition.

Regretfully, I need to vote "no" on this. I realize that this may seem 
extreme, but for me to be forced to call any kind of majority vote system 
"consensus" is almost as if someone was to tell an observant Jew  that he 
had to eat pork. I just can't do it. And no, that's not hyperbole - the 
thought actually makes my stomach knot up.

For example, if we just call it "consensus" and Kent remains the only 
person to disagree that "the bylaws are misleading",  then saying "we have 
a consensus that the bylaws are misleading" would totally disenfranchise 
and disrespect Kent's position. I won't be a party to that just because we 
disagree.

Incidentally, if we had a real consensus process, the possibility of some 
kind of capture scenario is greatly reduced - worth thinking about, 
considering how much worry has been put into that issue.

Kent was exactly right in something he posted a few days ago, and it 
slipped my mind earlier. There can't be any consensus process unless 
EVERYONE involved buys into it, and into the possibility of achieving 
consensus on some issues.

Anyway....I would suggest we call it what it is - a 2/3 majority (or 
"strong" majority) vote. This does two things - it refuses to buy into the 
"(riding) roughshod (over) consensus and broken code" definition we're 
operating under, and would hopefully prevent the NC from reporting out that 
we'd achieved consensus where we hadn't.

Secondly, on statements where we can achieve at least a 90% agreement, we 
can report that as "near-consensus", and on statements where there is no 
disagreement or block, we can report them as consensus. That will actually 
MEAN something then, and those recommendations should carry more weight.

Regards,
Greg

--
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