Hi Steven, many thanks for the explanations! In practice, I can not see how a consensus (even rough) can be achieved when every OGF member is a stakeholder. This probably simply means that the group chair makes qualified decisions after evaluating *all* opinions. This in turn implies really a lot of work and deep expertise in the subject on the part of the chair. Or do you have some other mechanisms to suggest? Cheers, Oxana On 14.12.2010 11:56, Steven Newhouse wrote:
Dear PGI,
Since this proposal first appeared on the PGI list it has been the subject of two OGF Board conversations. As conversation on it had apparently ceased we had thought it had gone away... but still appears to be in contention.
OGF standards are founded on two important concepts: * Open and transparent process * Rough Consensus
Your proposal breaks these concepts in two ways. By having identified voters you are stopping any member of OGF being a stakeholder in the work of the group. This is not acceptable. Rough consensus is not needed for the circulation of draft documents - so feel free to circulate ideas within the group as they develop. For a document to be submitted into the document process in order to lead to a standard it needs to have group consensus or be an individual submission.
Rough consensus is something that takes time and work from the group chairs or the document editors to achieve. It requires many iterations and edits in the document. It means having to understand the different views and appreciating where they come from, even if you don't agree with them.
Imposing a closed voting system in a WG is not something OGF can support.
Regards,
Steven for the OGF Board _______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg