At 1:27 PM -0800 on 12/27/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>Alain: I agree. Unanimity is often hard to achieve and
>it only requires one dissenter to bog down the
>process. Each participant is, in effect, given the
>power of veto.
Which is a very good thing when each participant is legally liable for the
actions decided on.
>> Mark Rauterkus: I know of a few. One, a local
>> planning forum, operates by a strict *********,
>> and it is a crying pitty. It stinks.
>
>Alain: We are talking about Unanimity. We are NOT
>talking about Consensus. Consensus is not a synonym
>for Unanimity.
Alain, let's go to the dictionary. Today's dictionary is: Merriam-Webster's
online WWWebster dictionary. Today's definition is:
Main Entry: con�sen�sus
Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
Date: 1858
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion
based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment
arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually
redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly
older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many
writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is
clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.
So, yes it is a synonym for unamity.
>Alain: I agree that unanimity should NOT always be
>required and that acting otherwise would be
>fool-hardy. There are some fundamental issues that we
>MUST all agree upon, however. Fundamentals like : we
>are open source, we are not a partnership/corporation,
>the GENERAL framework of our collaboration and of our
>licencing, and perhaps some other fundamentals that
>don't come to mind at this time.
I imagine we could certainly delegate powers by unanimous consent, no?
>A
>democracy cannot vote to become an dictatorship, for
>example.
Uli might know history a little better on this one. I'm sure he can tell
you about the late 1920's and early 1930's.
>Furthermore, the burden of proof belongs to the
>dissenter(s).
Doesn't it always? :(
