Re: [wg-d] Silence (Was: Streamlining Voting)

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 13 August 1999, "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com> wrote:


>>The issue of silence, and what it means in this process.
>
>When everyone is in a room together and you're sure they've heard the 
>message and had an open microphone to respond, I can understand the basis 
>for giving silence some meaning. Especially when the way the issue is 
>raised is to ask for objections.
>
>In the online world, people go on vacation, they get overwhelmed with 
>work and e-mail backs up, and you can never be sure that list members 
>have actually read or thought about the issues under consideration. 
>
>When we're moving forward a discussion or a draft, I would think it 
>acceptable to view an absence of criticism as some sign that the group is 
>moving in the right direction and should continue. There's really no 
>other way, that I can see, of working in an online group.
>
>But when the work is done, I think approval should be based on 
>affirmative votes, yes or no. If anything, silence at that point should 
>mean that the WG member is unavailable or has lost interest in the issue.

Oh, I agree 100%.  I never meant to imply that the consensus approach would
be applied to the final product.  I meant to clearly point out that 
consensus should never be applied to this particular instance.  I either
was too vague, or simply lost that point among the many others I wanted
to make.  

There should absolutely, positively be a formal vote on the final product,
to have a record of exactly how much agreement there is over the final
product.  This is of the utmost importance.  This way, there is a clear
indication of the amount of support the product has as it leaves the WG.

(Of course, I personally believe that if there's not significant buy-in,
it shouldn't be leaving.  But it's not outside the realm of possibility
that a document could escape with just barely majority support.  And
this should be recorded very clearly.)

...in fact, the results of the vote, and perhaps the names and 
constituency affiliations of the vote, should be attached to the final
document.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org