PAB Re: Consensus

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Jul 03, 1998 at 10:14:39AM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
[...]
> in the workshop.  In this particular case, consensus was determined by
> unanimity.

It is a terminology issue, I guess.  An alternate statement would be:
"Consensus was determined by a vote, and the vote in these cases was
unanimous."

When one says "consensus was determined by unanimity" that means that 
unanimity was the criteria for consensus, in which case, a single 
dissenting vote means that no consensus was reached.

More important than the particular definition of consensus, however,
is the 2nd conclusion of the group "B" (as reported at
http://www.domainhandbook.com/giaw.html):


    2.  As a whole, the IFWP participants should act as the principle
    incorporators of the new organization.  In other words, we can be
    considered to be *the* stakeholders. [Emphasis added]

As far as I am concerned that vote comes close to invalidating the
entire IFWP process.  Clearly, the IFWP participants are not the only
stakeholders, and by making the claim that they are I see that my
worst fears of an attempt to hijack the process are very likely
well-founded.  Any responsible effort would acknowledge that they are
not the only stakeholders. 

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html