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

["Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>]

I too agree with Chris, but as I said earlier there are things to learn
about "consensus" from the academic domain....things we can probably apply.
There are no perfect solutions, but we need to find what we consider the
best.

Michael

Michael Gendron.. Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Business
CCSU

860-437-8322
mgendron75@home.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]  On Behalf
Of Eric
Sent:	Monday, January 08, 2001 8:47 PM
To:	'Greg Burton'; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject:	RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)

I agree Chris and would move that we use this definition of consensus for
our proceedings.  It is a measurable tabulation and can be explained in our
final report.  Does anyone disagree?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Greg Burton
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:49 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)


Nice post, Chris - thanks.

At 04:51 PM 1/8/01, Chris McElroy wrote:
>Then in that case we will have to have a definition for each.

My definitions would be:

Consensus = "unanimous or no blocking opinions after a specific request for
any blocking opinions has bee requested"
Near-consensus="90% or greater in agreement"
Super-Majority="67% in agreement"
         NOTE - the reason for this change (from "strong" majority") is
that the White Paper uses this term. 67% is a normal             break
point, so I'd be comfortable with it, or 60%, or anything in between.
Majority="greater than 50% in agreement"

>You will find the majority don't have a clue of what it is and certainly
>don't know which
>"Version" of consensus is deciding things for them on the Internet.

And of the people who do know what consensus process means in policy
development, a large majority will never have heard of either the IETF or
it's "rough consensus".

>That in itself makes consensus invalid as a way of reaching decisions that
>people feel is representative of their interests. They will always distrust
>a system they do not understand.

I totally agree with you on this. Unless people understand it, it won't
work. Pretending that what we're doing is consensus is useless. Nor do we
need to. I'd prefer a real consensus system, but at this point we're all
pretty much agreed that right now it won't work. And even Kent has said
"votes are good" recently, so I don't see any harm in just voting on what
we as a group think - as long as we don't label the results consensus
unless they are.

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


--
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