Re: [wg-review] Representative Figures

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 12:42 23/03/01 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>Now, a consensus is not a decision, it is an
>observation. The only need to uncover if a consensus
>exists or not is to know about existing positions, ie
>to make sure that everyone who disagree may
>disagree. You truely do not care about people
>agreeing (except if you want to *report* about their
>number).
>
>So the most important thing in a consensus
>management approach is the stability so the
>largest number of opponents may know where
>and how to oppose. Then, when you do not
>participate it means you agree.
>

Exactly.

>In this perspective the WG-Review has been a
>huge success as an important number of people
>has participated (including Kent Crispin who's
>disagreement is a positive contribution to a
>comple assesment of the reality).
>
>In this perspective the WG-Review is a real threat.
>

L'histoire se repète. This is why the IFWP steering committee was disbanded.

It is also the reason why "independent" lists that convey a certain
consensus, such as the IDNO-discuss list (once ) and the NCDNHC list are
infiltrated by professional "neutralizers".

--Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

--
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