<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 10:55:45 -0500
The logic of this comment is correct. However, it is less impressive as an
argument, and its appeals to “consensus” are revealed as self-serving, when one
realizes that those who derive direct economic benefit from the status quo are
the ones who are blocking consensus.
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
It didn't fail just because you didn't get what you wanted. I bet you
would have the complete opposite argument regarding PEDNR. No consensus
is an acceptable outcome in a truly bottom up consensus driven process.
If there is no consensus for a particular change, then don't change it.
If the result of no consensus is that the Board goes off and does what
it wants anyway, then that tells the community what the Board really
thinks of consensus driven processes and tells the community not to
respect it either.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|