Er. Lisse and all, Are we now going to get into a long definition war as to what "Rough Consensus" is by definition? It appears so.... Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Einar Stefferud writes: > > I much prefer to use the "Rough Consensus and Running Code" rule! > > > > This should cover the NSI concerns about the NC maybe doing something > > that the registries actually cannot make happen, and it is not the > > kind of rule that will lead to log rolling and vote trading to make a > > critical number of votes. > > > > "Rough Consensus" is a rubbery number which cannot be reched by > > converting a single voter. This leads to beter cooperation inplace of > > fighting for votes. > > > > All we need to do is define "Rough Consensus"... So here is a start.. > > > > "Rough Consensus" is measured by observing whether there is > > substantial support and little objection, though the objections may in > > fact be intense. In general it will be obvious when consensus does > > not exist, and observing this should be sufficient for making > > decisions. In short, lack of consensus is generally obvious, and can > > be validated by the decision making group. > > Here's my definition: > > Rough Consensus >= 90% of the votes > > el > > --- > You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to: > http://lists.association.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=dnso.discuss > This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/). Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
