On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Andrew Alston <[email protected]> wrote: > I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be > controversial, but this is how I see it. > > It is not – and cannot be – the job of the co-chairs to drive a process > towards consensus.
english not everyones 1st language and i doubt this is what serge meant. off-course chairs cannot shove consensus down peoples throats > It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to > read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus > (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the > proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the > requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion > to withdraw or not). > > Why do I say that the co-chair’s cannot strive towards consensus: > > To do so implies that the co-chair’s have taken a position on the policy – > and that they should ever do – it compromises neutrality. If the community > by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast > majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair’s to > drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of > finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the > community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should > die as a result. > > The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair’s to start driving > towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery slope > where the neutrality mandate given to the chair’s becomes a moot point. I > don’t think we want to be in that situation personally. > > Andrew _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
