[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: CCWG - recs 1,2 and 11

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:46:50AM -0800, Robin Gross wrote:
> When I look up the definition of “voting” in order to understand if SO-ACs are doing it through exercise of community power, it seems pretty clear we will be “voting”.

As I already suggested, I don't think debating the word's meaning is
going to help us, because decision-making mechanisms are complicated
and people have different meanings.  For instance, as you pointed out,
Webster seems to think that "an expression of opinion or preference
that resembles a vote" qualifies; since that is going to stand or fall
on what you think "resembles" or "vote" (or both) means, it doesn't
really help us.

The point is rather that the mechanism we have provides a number of
escalation procedures along with lots of different mechanisms for
discussion and debate, punctuated by decision-making moments that rely
on more or less formally-established bodies to express opinion.  This
is certainly not _individual_ voting, and it's not even representative
voting since AFAIK the SOs and ACs aren't themselves constituted by
election.  Some might call it voting by the SOs and ACs.  I say all we
know is that there is an escalating majoritarian principle for certain
kinds of action, but the majority is of groups the composition of
which is at best a little murky; and also that the principle is always
accompanied by a lot of discussion.  Something like that, even if it
contained something that everyone would call a formal vote, can also
be correctly described as a way of determining consensus.  I don't
think there is a good argument for binary opposition here.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com