Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

Interestingly, California has an instruction to juries whose job it is to
deliberate(try to reach a consensus) and then vote, it goes something like
this;  It is rarely productive for Jurors to enthusiastically state thier
position at the outset of deliberations because it is then difficult to change
opinions even when faced with a more convincing point of view.
Sincerely,

Eric wrote:

> An interesting point that has not been brought up to date is this:  Working
> towards a consensus encourages people with different / opposing ideas and
> agendas to compromise and work towards a similar goal.  It fosters a "give
> and take" mentality.   Merely voting encourages people to stick to their
> guns and convince others that their ideas are more favorable.  You are much
> more likely to create a majority /minority rift within the group when we
> simply state our ideas and vote on which is the best.  In this type of
> environment we would all be best served if we work out a mix between the
> two!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Cindy Merry
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 9:02 PM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
>
> Kent Crispin and Greg Burton had an interesting discussion, a part of which
> I've clipped for comment.
>
> Just wanted to say that anytime you bring any amount of people together to
> discuss ideas, create policies, and implement those into action, there is
> disagreements.  Everyone has their own motives and agendas, but we have to
> start with the agreed upon understanding that all of those that choose to
> become involved start with a desire to achieve something.  Establishing
> rules of procedure, clearly defining a meeting agenda and a process of
> presenting ideas can lead to consensus.
>
> However, to most of us laymen,  to use the word consensus is to imply
> agreement.  Personally I don't believe that we can create an environment
> where every person who offers opinions, ideas and has business and personal
> agendas can be in agreement with every other person.  That's why I favor
> voting in a structure where balance is created between various interests.
> A lot of people dislike the Electoral College idea...but it does create
> some balance between disparate populations with different interests.
>
> Bottom line is policies and procedures, clearly explained, for this work
> group would most likely have kept those who dropped out or were overwhelmed
> on board with the rest of us.
>
> Cindy Merry
>
> Greg Burton:   > > Real consensus has real rules of process which are
> agreed to by everyone
> > > participating, and doesn't proceed until everyone understands the
> rules.
> >
> Kent:  >Once again, this assumes a static population.
>
> Kent Crispin:  No, actually it doesn't. It assumes that you establish
> general and explicit
> rules and procedures ahead of time and publish them. You create an
> "education about our process" list. When you create a WG participants
> explicity agree to the rules when they sign up, and you direct them to the
> process list and the published rules so that they CAN understand them if
> they don't already.
>
> For crying out loud - this is NOT rocket science.
>
> --
> 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

Emanuel.exe