[Fwd: Re: rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")]

[Erik Guttman]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Scott W Brim wrote:
>>I like the idea that Chairs should document why they declared consensus
>>(or the lack of it).
> 
> 
> Agreed. But another thing that may be going on is Chairs making consensus 
> calls too late.

The hardest part of calling consensus is its subtlety.  After 100s of
emails have been exchanged and a rough consensus has emerged it doesn't
really exist (have any reality) until the consensus has been put into
words by the chair.  Without a coherent statement posted to the list
describing a consensus it is hard to know
  - what actions it implies
  - whether all dissenting views have been considered
  - what compromises were made among those forming the consensus
    (what were their positions originally and what did they agree to?)

Defending or questioning a consensus call requires mailing list
archeology, which is a tedious and inexact discipline.  We should
do better and we can.

============================
Solution discussion:

I have found that by documenting the

  - final decision and action to take
  - summary of the dominant consensus position taken, including
    where they aren't in accord
  - well worked out dissenting views
  - notes from the WG chair (if needed), to clarify how a difficult
    decisions was made and why it is reasonable.

This sounds like a lot of writing.  It usually comes down to a page
or two, even for very complex decisions.  Advantages of putting this
in the record are

a) You can point at it when someone wants to bring the topic up
    again.

b) If the chair overlooks something, it is easy to reopen the
    consensus call *for a very specific reason* without reopening
    the whole debate.  (Note:  Sometimes WG chairs do not fully
    understand the issues they are making a consensus call on.
    By writing this consensus document, it is easy to determine
    whether the argument has been correctly heard and evaluated.)

c) It is a extremely useful to have definitive instructions *what
    to do* with a consensus decision.

d) Once a consensus statement is accepted by the working group
    we have something much more concrete than a record in WG
    minutes that such and such was decided upon, etc.

Erik