Re: [wg-c] Agreement on method for consensus determination

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

>>> "Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com> 07/13/99 08:20PM >>>

wrote:

>Until such time as the Secretariat adds me to wg-c-1 and wg-c-2, I'll have
>to post this here.
>
>I'd like to state that Mr. Connolly's proposal for a consensus mechanism
>sounds workable, with perhaps a few tweaks.
>
>First, perhaps we could change item 1 so that it eliminates the ability
>of either chair to claim consensus.  

That's a "suggestion of consensus."  It's like a motion.  In other words, no
we should not change this.

>It would seem that in order for
>consensus to exist, the chairs would have to recognize it jointly.

In order to remove the possibility that the PNC-appointed chair could frustrate
the wishes of the WG, I have provided alternatives to joint action by the co-chairs.
(A) Either chair PLUS the Reporter; or
(B) Any five WG members.

>Also, with the pDNC appointing a chair, I'd prefer this in order
>to eliminate possible capture issues.

I'm not concerned with capture.  I am concerned with obstruction.

>
>Second, could the count of "five members of the WG" be changed to a 
>percentage, along with the "three members" in item 3?

The bar was set high to prevent obstructionists from bombarding the WG 
with frivolous suggestions of consensus.   If you can't get four people or a 
chairwam to support your suggestion, maybe you need to rethink it.

>
>Third, from where did the Reporter come? 

The very first post on the C-1 and C-2 lists.  There was some support for it.  There
was no opposition.  It's not yet at the level of consensus . . .

> Not that I object to one.
>But are we deciding to elect/appoint one?  This should be done
>concurrently/immediately following the election of co-chair.
>

Agreed.

>Finally, who runs the voting mechanism/votebot?  I would very much
>prefer that this be a neutral party.

Actually, I like Kent's suggestion of open voting.

>
>I'm voicing these concerns (1) because other members of the WG who
>are not part of group 1 may not have read Mr. Connolly's ideas, and
>(2) because once this mechanism is established, there's a strong
>possibility it will be adopted by the other WGs.  Therefore, I'd prefer
>we get it right the first time.
>
>This is a very positive step in the right direction, and if we can get
>this out of the way, we can get on with our tasks.

I concur.  Now is the time to resolve these issues.  Once we get down to
the substantive issues, it's too late.

KJC
<As usual, please disregard the silly trailer>

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************