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

[Erik Guttman]

Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 July 2003 15:21, Erik Guttman wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> I think it's important to note here that silence does not indicate consent.   
> There are cases where a discussion in a working group becomes so voluminous 
> that people stop reading the mailing list, or even if they don't stop, they 
> may miss the consensus call, or may not have time to respond to it because 
> they are so behind in their day job because of keeping up with the mailing 
> list.   Or they may just be so discouraged from what has happened that they 
> don't say anything because it seems futile to do so.   Or they may be 
> reluctant to say anything because they feel that opening up the debate again 
> will just drive more working group members away.   When that happens, you 
> can't really say the failure of those parties to protest means that the 
> working group agrees with your sense of what the consensus is.

Ted,

I agree.

However, I think one can improve the current situation.

It is much easier to read and consider a 'consensus statement' than
the full-on fire hose of a working group mailing list discussing a
divisive topic.  The consensus statement I am describing summarizes
all arguments for and against and makes a definitive call as well as
its implications.

Voicing effective criticism often requires full engagement with WG 
discussion to participate *at all*.  We often lack time to do that.
I believe that this is largely due to a failure on the part of WG
chairs to document decisions and what led up to them.  Given such a 
document, we (as lurkers/outsiders) can take issue or agree *with the
document* without needing to master the huge volume of correspondence
which preceded it.

Erik