Re: [wg-c] consensus call results

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 01:37 PM 12/20/1999 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > I hate to argue with you, but you did not include the 3 abstentions
>
>While I don't agree with your reason, I do agree that the vote was close,
>too close to the 2/3 mark - one more "No" vote would have changed the
>2/3-ness.

an excellent demonstration of the problem with creating a precise 
threshhold to demonstrate rough consensus:  it invites arguing that it was 
"only" one vote away from being 2 to 1, rather than focusing on the fact 
that twice as many votes were in favor than were against.

And it leads to the silliness of "concessions" that the vote was "too close 
to call".  A super-majority of 2-to-1 is too close to call!

Why not just argue that anything less than 100% support shows a lack of 
sufficient support?  (This would be under the theory that it is better to 
get no work done than to have anyone unhappy with that work.)

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA