RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

Eric:  Sometimes polarity is better at bringing consensus then lurking in
the shadows.  As someone who doesn't know the politics of everyone
contributing to this work group, I have found it difficult to sift through
the "politeness" to get to the "meat".?.  For myself, I'm beginning to
understand the ambiguities of the issues but I'd like some clear positions
stated to allow me to arrive at my own stance.  I'd also like for everyone
to stop using acronyms for everything because it makes it much more
difficult to check my chart and go back to the discussion in front of me in
every e-mail :)

I truly think that give and take is developed because each side and those
in between desire to achieve something and perhaps the problem we are
endlessly circling in this work group is no one has defined clearly what it
is we want to achieve.

My ideal is to hear what everyone thinks or what they perceive as the facts
and then be allowed to "vote" with the view that is most closely aligned
with my own thinking.  In other words, I want to hear what you, and
everyone else, think but I don't want to argue endlessly about it or get
caught up in the semantics forever.

As it is, I have a sinking suspicion that there is a whole lot going on in
this work group that I can't keep up with or is happening without my input.
Of course my input might not be as valuable as our more learned members but
I'd like them to get a sense of my concerns as an Internet community
member.

Thanks, Cindy Merry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Eric
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:20 PM
To: 'Cindy Merry'; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

An interesting point that has not been brought up to date is this:  Working
towards a consensus encourages people with different / opposing ideas and
agendas to compromise and work towards a similar goal.  It fosters a "give
and take" mentality.   Merely voting encourages people to stick to their
guns and convince others that their ideas are more favorable.  You are much
more likely to create a majority /minority rift within the group when we
simply state our ideas and vote on which is the best.  In this type of
environment we would all be best served if we work out a mix between the
two!

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Cindy Merry
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 9:02 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem


Kent Crispin and Greg Burton had an interesting discussion, a part of which
I've clipped for comment.

Just wanted to say that anytime you bring any amount of people together to
discuss ideas, create policies, and implement those into action, there is
disagreements.  Everyone has their own motives and agendas, but we have to
start with the agreed upon understanding that all of those that choose to
become involved start with a desire to achieve something.  Establishing
rules of procedure, clearly defining a meeting agenda and a process of
presenting ideas can lead to consensus.

However, to most of us laymen,  to use the word consensus is to imply
agreement.  Personally I don't believe that we can create an environment
where every person who offers opinions, ideas and has business and personal
agendas can be in agreement with every other person.  That's why I favor
voting in a structure where balance is created between various interests.
A lot of people dislike the Electoral College idea...but it does create
some balance between disparate populations with different interests.

Bottom line is policies and procedures, clearly explained, for this work
group would most likely have kept those who dropped out or were overwhelmed
on board with the rest of us.

Cindy Merry




Greg Burton:   > > Real consensus has real rules of process which are
agreed to by everyone
> > participating, and doesn't proceed until everyone understands the
rules.
>
Kent:  >Once again, this assumes a static population.

Kent Crispin:  No, actually it doesn't. It assumes that you establish
general and explicit
rules and procedures ahead of time and publish them. You create an
"education about our process" list. When you create a WG participants
explicity agree to the rules when they sign up, and you direct them to the
process list and the published rules so that they CAN understand them if
they don't already.

For crying out loud - this is NOT rocket science.


--
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


--
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

--
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