[wg-c] consensus

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 01:37 PM 8/21/99 , Milton Mueller wrote:
>This is a step backwards from where we have already gone.
>It is not significantly different from the original version of
>Q1, Option 1, which does NOT command anything close
>to a consensus.
>
>Look at what Kevin has proposed.

Milton, please clarify the reference to Kevin.

If your point is that someone clearly does not agree, then it sounds as if 
your criterion for "consensus" is unanimity.

In the Internet the model has been "rough" consensus, which means a 
strongly dominant view, but not necessarily unanimity.  If one were to 
force a reference to numbers, then a proportion of 2/3 to 3/4 captures the 
idea, though it shouldn't be used directly.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>