[Internal-cg] Consensus building process
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Mon Aug 11 10:45:20 UTC 2014
you are right, there should be a mechanism imposed to settle the consensus designation dispute. Voting could be one means whereby the voting scheme has to be defined.
Maybe there are other ideas...
From: Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:40 AM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: WUKnoben ; Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process
Thank you very much for reply
My point is that if one or more ICG Mmember(s) is7are againszt the ruling of the Chir ,They could raise their issue and the matter must be settled by simple explanation or if not resolved by voting . I.E. CHAIR DOES NOT HAVE DECISION MAKING POWER ON HE OR HIS OWN WISHES RATHER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VIEWS OF MEMBERS
2014-08-11 8:33 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
On 11 aug 2014, at 08:09, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> The chair’s designation that consensus is reached is not her/his own decision rather than a wrap-up of extensive discussions. Of course this designation can be challenged by members. And this is what triggers your question about “If several participants in the ICG disagree with the designation given ...”. I’m open to any helpful suggestion on how we could procede in such a case.
> In the end consensus - as defined – has to be achieved.
Let me emphasize what you say here, which I strongly agree with.
We must deliver.
This implies we must be able to reach consensus.
The last couple of weeks discussions on various topics makes me a bit pessimistic on the ability for us to reach consensus, but I am optimistic, always optimistic, on peoples ability and interest in actually deliver.
Remember that the chair is calling on the consensus question, not the substance. That way the power of the chair is decreased to a minimum and process issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg