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

[Scott W Brim]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 11:28:25AM +0200, Erik Guttman allegedly wrote:
> Martin Stiemerling wrote:
>  > It should be documented what are the choices have been for voting on.
> 
> Presenting things as 'Joe, John, Jim and Jazz argued blah, while
> Kevin and Karl maintained bleh.  The WG went with blah because...'
> makes the decision resemble a vote; we list people by name, give
> numbers of participants and so on, to justify the decision.  By
> writing down the grounds for decision, we have a concrete statement
> which can be criticized and evaluated.  But this is not a vote. It
> is a judgment call based on the generally acknowledged technical
> strength of the arguments presented.

Saying who said what is for the meeting notes (so those participating
only by mail can have a deep understanding of what went on there).
Consensus documentation can stick to the issues.