On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > I question whether rough > consensus is even a good idea in a research environment. That a few people > agree on terms is sufficient for THEM to collaborate together. That others > do not agree may be sufficient for those others to collaborate, and let the > best research win.
Eliot, That would be an unrecorded vote against an RRG-wide definition of locator and identifier. You propose, rather, that they be given meanings only within the context of the group collaborations in which they're used. Your statement above proves my point: There was no consensus. On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: > At > the end of a topic discussion, it should be clear to all whether a > rough consensus deserves to be declared, even the losers. Right here we have an insightful explanation of the concept we call "consensus." On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > The IETF (and RRG) seek _rough_ consensus. The fact that they do so by a > show of hands, a hum, or a doodle poll is merely a matter of mechanism. > It's all just voting. http://collaborationzone.com/consensus-isnt-taking-a-vote/ "Sounds like voting to me. Same process, same outcome: An idea is presented, there is discussion, the majority “wins,” and there is a disaffected minority who agrees to “live with” the decision - until the next chance they get to change it. Which means you’ll get to make this decision again…and again…and again. And that’s pretty much the opposite of a decision made by consensus." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
