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

todd glassey todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jul 16 07:23:10 CEST 2003


You mean that they should be accountable for their decisions?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
To: "Scott W Brim" <swb at employees.org>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: rough consensus (was Re: "trouble maker")]


> 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.
>
> If you ask a WG to accept a draft that's been in development for a year
> and the WG says no, you asked the question too late. It's not a
> problem with the consensus process, but with the decision tree.
>
>       Brian
>



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list