[governance] Process issues for future consensus calls

[McTim]

All,

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling of the just-concluded
> drafting exercise and consensus call

Just to clarify, it was the closing of the statement and the
re-opening it (after a reiteration that it was closed) that I objected
to, not the drafting exercise itself.

, and Bill and I continued that
> discussion off-list.  He suggested I bring it back on list, so I am going to
> summarise the underlying issues between us here (rather than, as in our
> off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't include such-and-such
> a comment in mind-numbing detail).
> As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I have led, I will seek to
> draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach that incorporates
> these steps:
> * Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it realistically draw, any
> support other than from its proponent?  (This is not an onerous test to
> pass.)
> * If so, does it contradict the views of a significant number
> of other members that remain strongly held despite an adequate period of
> discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough consensus could emerge?
> * If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy both camps where
> possible.
> * If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied with the compromise,
> omit text on this issue from the statement altogether.
> * Otherwise, include the text.
> * My standard for including changes becomes more stringent when the last
> text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more so during the
> consensus call (when it is basically limited to correcting errors).

That was not my perception of what happened this time.

The charter does not specify how text is drafted or edited.  However,
given how messy the process was this time, i would not wish to use
this method going forward.

In any case, it seems that most folk prefer the statement as amended
to include Thematic WGs.  I have no problem with us issuing such a
statement, as it does seem to reflect the majority of opinion of
Caucus Members.

However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding
consensus.  IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators.

Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT
vote on statements.  We indicate support for statements (or lack
thereof).  While the difference is subtle it is important for some of
us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is.

Let's NOT do "Preliminary results of" anything, as it only serves to
muddy the waters.

Charter says:
"In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two
coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject
to an appeal as described below."

In this case, it seems clear there is a consensus of those who have
voiced an opinion.  Two coordinators calling rough consensus are
needed only when there is no clear consensus.


> Bill differs from me on this process.  He will correct me if I
> mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers that all suggestions
> for changes (even contradictory ones) should be included in the text in
> brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy) consensus emerges.
>  Moreover if substantive changes are called for even after a consensus call,
> and there is sufficient time to re-open for discussion, the call should be
> rescinded.
> It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we could
> experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need for
> confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's
> approach would (in my view) have required in this case.

As long as we use the website specified in the charter.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t