Re: [Pesci-discuss] Back to the decision-making thing

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 02:58:49PM -0500, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote:
> I think that one thing that came out of the discussion yesterday and
> perhaps is clearer on the mailing list today is that "rough consensus"
> isn't working here because it can't work when the participants are
> taking polarized positions.  

I believe it was Sam who suggested that the way to avoid polarization
is to discuss these things in a room with all the people who don't
usually get involved -- who are at the meeting to do engineering.
They would "fill in the middle".

> Another thing that struck me, though, is
> that several people said that people who are unhappy with the process
> are those who've been on the losing end of something-or-other and
> they need to perhaps be a little more gracious about it.  While I
> think that's generally true, or at least is true in terms of the
> general direction we need to be going in the future, it's an attitude
> which is pretty much completely antithetical to consensus process.
> Consensus tries to ensure that there are no losers per se and that the worst
> possible outcome is that somebody says "I don't agree with that but
> I can live with it and won't block the decision."  It seems possible
> to me that some of the problems we're seeing are the result of creating
> losers and pushing up general frustration levels higher than they need
> to be ("If this is supposed to be a consensus process, why aren't you
> listening to me?").

We've been around this one a few times, eh?  Is it possible in the
current situation?

Thanks ... Scott

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss