Re: [wg-review] Fourth Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0
1/24/01 5:47:15 PM, "YJ Park (MINC)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Out of Theresa's report
>In this sense, the activities of open fora is important, but debate, and
>votes (use of votes in Working Groups is useful for information gathering
>purposes, but it tends to polarize opinion, and should be used with
>should be viewed as valuable intellectual inputs into the consensus
>development process; but they can not be presumed to be the consensus-
>development process itself.
Theresa (I presume),
Does this mean they should be presumed *not* to have any place in the
consensus-development process itself?
Also, excuse my asking, but just what exactly is a "consensus development
process"; wherefore, wherefrom, and wherewith, "development"? Just who
is *developing* what? and according to which "process"? Perhaps you
can help us with a defintion of "consensus" while you're at it? After all, I
have seen no evidence of any process in this entire business! Perhaps, that
is the process itself (i.e. non-process)?
Hermes Network, Inc.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html