<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-rules] Re: [ga] Consensus
- To: Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>
- Subject: [ga-rules] Re: [ga] Consensus
- From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:23:36 +1200
- Cc: ga-rules@dnso.org
- In-Reply-To: <15188.63627.169657.52574@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us>
- References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010717212714.023da400@mail.msen.com><15188.51305.938320.101242@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us><5.0.2.1.2.20010717212714.023da400@mail.msen.com>
- Sender: owner-ga-rules@dnso.org
At 19:46 17/07/01 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
>I would be tempted to agree with you about adopting the IETF approach,
>except for the fact that it does not apply in this particular
>situation. I do not know whether or not is is better to choose an
>"easy" consensus or a "hard" consensus, but this is definitely a "hard"
>consensus. The vehemence of opposition is such that there are clearly
>major problems with achieving a "rough" consensus here. Both myself and
>others have expressed grave doubts about both the method of forcing this
>so-called consensus on the "rules" through the GA and with the actual
>proposal (vague as it is).
The IETF model clearly ranks "vehemence" of opposition in the same
category as "dominance" by way of volume. (=without consequence)
In other words: Persuade, don't bully.
The GA should not give de facto veto rights to individual participants
simply because of their capacity to be "vehement".
--Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.democracy.org.nz/idno/)
Developer of The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|