<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [wg-review] Consensus - and broken questions on the polling booth
Reaching large-scale (anything greater than a small group) consensus is
almost impossible, unless you employ a voting mechanism. Then we are talking
a democratic process. There are really few options.
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 Roeland Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:51 AM
To: 'Harald Alvestrand'; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] Consensus - and broken questions on the polling
booth
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:56 AM
> A vote is a vote. A consensus is a value judgment.
This is precisely my problem with "consensus". It is a value-judgement. In
other words, it is non-deterministic. There is no definitive connection
between the evidence of consensus and the result. There is only a
correlation.
In small groups, that may well work. It doesn't scale past 100,000 members
though. At that scale, one needs proof and direct causality.
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|