John Beck writes: > Plocher> ... the "must be unanimous" part ... dooms such discussions > Plocher> to being decided by a minority rather than a majority... > > Agreed; unanimity should only be required for special circumstances, > not general ones; otherwise, logic is turned on its head and it is > difficult to get anything done. Following the IETF credo, I believe > "rough consensus" is more appropriate.
I don't. There's a point in requiring unanimity in a vote by email: the board should be using "shortcut" measures that bypass the normal deliberative process (the telephone or in-person meetings) *only* when the issue at hand is so obvious that there is no dissent. I don't think John Plocher was right about this one. It's not a matter of "dooming" all discussions to be decided by a minority, but rather allowing the minority to request full review when necessary. It's very much in the ARC tradition: fast-track by email, but full review needs a higher-bandwidth meeting. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
