RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Short-term schedule
- To: <avri@xxxxxxx>, <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Short-term schedule
- From: <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:22:36 +0200
sorry about the double spam, my two years old girl got hold of my phone.
From: Ruuska Jarkko (Nokia-CIC/Tampere)
Sent: 30.06.2010, 19:45
To: avri@xxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Short-term schedule
From: ext Mike O'Connor
Sent: 30.06.2010, 17:31
To: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Short-term schedule
i think Avri's point is REALLY important. i'm hunting for ways to make sure
that the minority points of view get included in our work product.
my brain isn't much good today (this seems to be Jetlag Day for me) so i'm not
terribly proud of these ideas and would welcome improvements
-- if the minority view isn't included in the Atoms list, let's make an atom
for that idea and let the two big gaggles develop positions. maybe the
minority view will become one of those.
-- if the minority view on an existing atom doesn't show up in either of the
two big-blob proposals, let's develop and report those minority views by atom
-- let's encourage the two big-blob groups to give the minority-viewpoint
people one more listen and try to figure out some middle ground
Avri's absolutely right -- if we walk out of here with minority-position folks
feeling that their views haven't been heard or considered, we haven't done
right by them.
On Jun 29, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2010, at 18:11, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>> 2. How can we determine in the next 3 weeks whether we have consensus
>> with a majority/small minority, or no consensus on a single proposal?
> the only process i know is that after a point the chairs test the waters by
> deciding whether we have reached consensus or strong support and measure how
> loud the scream are. from there they recalibrate and try again.
> the other part of this whole process, is that it is important for those who
> have the opinions (majority or minority) to be sure that their positions have
> really been heard, understood and considered. for a big majority to say, we
> are the big majority hence we win without ever seriously considering all of
> the minority positions fails the process in my view.
> i still see us with split support of two primary positions with a bunch of
> minority opinions that are pretty much languishing on the edges because those
> who have accepted the bigger positions just don't want to hear from them
> anymore. can't blame them, but it is not my understanding of how the process
> succeeds. Minorities will often accept a majority position when they are
> sure they have been heard, understood and considered. Otherwise they just
> feel burnt.
> (of course some minorities never accept and some majorities never listen and
> that life for you.)
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)