Subject: RE: Response requested: Proposal regarding milestones

From: "Presuhn, Randy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:32:23 -0600

Hi -

> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 16:11
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Response requested: Proposal regarding milestones
...
> I am certainly not in favor of a system where a 51% majority
> makes every decision.
> 
> However, I do think that doing a rough "vote", and finding out
> (roughly) how many people support each of several positions can
> help the chairs to decide how to guide the WG to consensus.
...

If, after technical discussion of the alternatives, it comes down
to a 51% majority, then perhaps it doesn't really matter too much
which of the alternatives is chosen.

Whether the process uses voting or "rough consensus", the
quality of the discussion leading up to the decision is
what matters.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:45:23 -0800

> which of the alternatives is chosen.

uh, no, because you're assuming that all votes are equally-informed and
all votes are made by people with equal insights.

democracy works great for social institutions because the alternative is
civil wars. it doesn't work great for technical institutions when pesky
things like the laws of physics can't be legislated away (even by 100%
of the votes).

> quality of the discussion leading up to the decision is

sure, and voting doesn't change that.

/mtr