At 7:53 PM -0800 on 11/9/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>> Alain: Consensus is not the equivalent of Unanimity.
>> In my opinion, a consensus is quite similar to a
>> majority except that dissenting views and other
>> concerns of minorities are taken into account in
>> the final decision. A consensus is thus the best
>> (majority) compromise ... [cutting Alain off]
>
>Anthony: Thus making everyone unhappy?
>
>Alain: Your cynical, Anthony.
In this case, absolutely. And I can guess what would happen: If OC was
supposed to be released in four weeks, the programmers wanted eight, and
the UI people two, the UI people would request 1, the programmers sixteen :)
>
>Anthony: Most decisions take minority views into
>account. Even with plain majority rule, they can
>propose amendments, etc. But if the majority does not
>like it, it does not happen.
>
>Alain: Taking into account a minority's concerns does
>not mean listening to them and then acting as one
>wishes. It means making an amendment. Its a question
>of judgement and fairness, particular for the one who
>plays the role of consensus-maker.
OK. Let's say person A proposes something. 60% concur. 40% oppose, and
support a exclusive alternative. How is the consensus formed?
Ultimately, I think an agreement will be reached: The 60% will do as they
please, and so will the 40%; if they consider it to minor an issue, the 40%
will go along. Otherwise, they'll fork.
Consider an example: 60% -> Our own GUI library; 40% -> wxWindows. How is a
consensus form, what precisely does the consensus-maker do, and in whom is
final athority vested?
>
>Alain: To simplify things, however, let's just call it
>decision-making by majority-vote with provisions for
>taking into account (or at least listen to) dissenting
>minority views.
In other words, debate and amendment? I really _do_ want to know what you
mean by this, but it seems you're talking in Orwellian newspeak (no offence
intended).
