Re: [wg-review] Please submit your proposal for DNSO Review

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 11:39 AM 1/9/01, brianappleby@netscape.net wrote:
>If the goal for DNSO is to get help from the working group as to ways to
>improve their ability to generate/create/achieve consensus, then why not
>involve professional or experience consensus 'experts' to support the
>efforts?  Their process-oriented tools and techniques will help separate
>process from personal/professional interests and help define a fair and
>effective way to improve the current poor situation.

Absolutely correct.

>consensus building should go through a structured process defining the 
>issues, both direct and indirect; defining
>alternative positions on the issues, listing or explaining the trade-offs 
>involved in the various position choices; and then dissecting the issues 
>to define points of both consensus and contention, with work then 
>progressively
>focused on eliminating the latter.

Sounds like you've done this for real before. It's been suggested *sigh*

>In terms of definition, please let me share the following, found after a
>quick search on 'consensus'...quite an industry in and of itself.

Mmhmm, it is. I'm still working on my links list for folks who asked - 
hopefully I'll have it up soon.

>"A public consensus is a collective view of the people in a community that is
>more than a majority, an average, a middle ground or a compromise. A
>consensus is what you would expect if people -- even people who disagree with
>each other -- sat down together and honestly tried to find a workable
>solution acceptable to all. And wouldn't quit until they found it.

Works for me, although I'm a little more formal than that. That's pretty 
close to a normally understood meaning.

They definitely wouldn't recognize what has been called "consensus process" 
here in the past. Take a look at this post, if you didn't see it through 
the spam. Then read the response from Kent, particularly where he repeats 
that "my" version of consensus isn't what was intended by the word......
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00737.html

>Note that they use the term 'position' rather than 'decision'.  My take on
>this translates into consensus being 'defining what something is or should
>be' rather than 'deciding what needs to be done' in order to achieve the
>goals.

It can be either a policy position or an action directive. Some 
conveners/facilitators prefer to focus on policy process, others on action 
process. In either case the process of clearly defined rules, understanding 
of and agreement to the process, agreed upon procedures, and respect for 
each other are core to the effort.


Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
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