Re: understanding consensus

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Thom Stark allegedly said:
> 
[...]
> 
> Because the IAHC is an appointed body with an international membership,
> I do not think it is legally bound by the Brown Act.  As a matter of
> personal preference, however, I would like the IAHC to publish *all*
> the comments it has received from all parties who have not specifically
> requested confidentiality.

On the net there is a strong presumption that private email will not 
be made public without the authors permission.  I prefer to keep it 
that way, even in the context of the IAHC.

>  I also feel that input from those parties
> who *have* requested confidentiality be given a considerably lesser
> weight in the IAHC's deliberations over a final and/or interim draft,
> on the grounds that the end product toward which they (and we) are
> working will be an openly-published set of specifications.  The chain
> of logic which results in the specs must, itself, be defensible, and
> that is considerably harder when the premises upon which it is based
> cannot be publicly disclosed.

The premises will hopefully be publically disclosed in the draft.  
The draft should stand alone, regardless of input.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F