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

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

I second that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris McElroy [mailto:watch-dog@inreach.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:44 PM
To: Dr. Michael S. Gendron
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)


Doesn't sound hard to me. Let's do it, or to put it better, I'd like to make
a motion we handle the topics one by one in this fashion.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>
To: "'Chris McElroy'" <watch-dog@inreach.com>; "'Greg Burton'"
<sidna@feedwriter.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:12 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)


> 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