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

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

I think I agree with all of this.  Cindy Merry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Eric
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 5:47 PM
To: 'Greg Burton'; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)

I agree Chris and would move that we use this definition of consensus for
our proceedings.  It is a measurable tabulation and can be explained in our
final report.  Does anyone disagree?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Greg Burton
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:49 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
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