[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] Silence (Was: Streamlining Voting)
I think this comment is important and true. It reflects my experience of
"Bret A. Fausett" 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.
> -- Bret
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | email@example.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot there. I'm elsewhere. <--