IMHO, a. It is unclear when "consensus is required".
preferably, always. If consensus cannot be reached, consensus should be reached on how to proceed. If consensus is not reached quite often on some kinds of issues, consensus can be reached on deviation from the basic consensus rule (ie, as we did with the Avalon PMC voting guidelines).
b. I like democratic rules better.
I don't. Striving for consensus reduces the importance of voting. We can have something like "lazy consensus", but "lazy democracy" doesn't work too well (Re: the USA).
Anyway, if we want we can change rules, add them, remove them, whatever. But my preferred alternative is to just not debate small issues at length and apply meritocracy and lazy consensus principles (ie we recognize a particular issue is not worth three weeks of discussion so we just move forward and get out of the way of the people doing the work).
Put yet another way: if an issue is not important enough to want to achieve consensus, its not important enough to hold a vote :D
----
Leo Sutic wrote: "Raise the issue on the PMC mailing list"
nah, let's keep the conversation public :D
-- cheers,
- Leo Simons
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/ IoC Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/ Articles & Opinions -- http://articles.leosimons.com/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules." -- Alan Bennett
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
