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

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

Chris:  As many of us have been saying...yes we need order and in the
absence of other methods, this would work fine.  And is similar to what I
was proposing in my earlier post.....that is how it is usually done in the
academic community.

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 Chris McElroy
Sent:	Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:40 AM
To:	Greg Burton
Cc:	wg-review@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)

Thank you for the definitions. I think by just one-person, one-vote and
having the results of that vote presented as to how many voted for what
should sufficiently help them make decisions regarding the proposals. If as
in Rob's Rules, we create a specific topic one at a time, have a discussion
period with a time limit, then give each member of the list adequate time to
write one email on the topic presenting their views on it, then vote on it,
we can accomplish our tasks here.

Anyone care to comment on that?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:48 PM
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