RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 07:06 PM 1/5/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>In order to know if one has a majority, one counts votes, ayes, nays, etc.
>Consensus doesn't do anything near that explicit. One can have consensus
>with a minority opinion, absent majority disent. The two are NOT equivalent.

Actually, Roeland, in a formally run consensus process the question is 
explicity asked:

"Does anyone wish to block consensus on this statement?"

Responses to the question might include (as examples) "I disagree with the 
statement and wish to block consensus" or "I don't agree with the 
statement, but I won't block consensus", or "I agree with the statement". 
(A situation where a majority don't respond is called a "lukewarm 
consensus", is regarded as having nowhere near the weight of consensus, and 
should be reported out as such.)

Way different than what has been happening, eh? It's infuriating that what 
has been called "consensus" here has so thoroughly tainted people's 
impression of a very pragmatic and workable method for coming to group 
decisions. I'll shut up now.

Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html