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

[Paul Svensson <paul-dns@svensson.org>]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Chris McElroy wrote:

>Then in that case we will have to have a definition for each.

Rather than looking at percentage points, trying to label
some kind of qualified majority as a "consensus", I see it like:

Strong Consensus = All for, None against
Consensus = Some for, None against
Near Consensus = Most for, None with practical veto against

"Practical veto" is the power to block the implementation of a decision,
outside of the decision making process.  For example,
if the issue is who picks up the bill after a group dinner,
the one asked to pick up the bill has practical veto,
as they could simply walk out on it.

As it seems unlikely that this group will be able to reach,
by this definition, anything better that "Near Consensus" on most issues,
I would suggest that we also use:

Majority: More for than against
Qualified Majority: Some larger percentage (say 2/3) for/against
Strong Majority: More than half for, of total elegible to vote
Qualified Strong Majority: Some larger percentage (say 2/3) for/total

Note that there can be any kind of majority without any kind of consensus,
but if there is any kind of consensus, there is also some kind of majority.

	/Paul

--
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