On 02/11/2007, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Shawn Walker writes: > > > Again, you fail to define consensus. If you believe it to be the > > > majority opinion, how are you determining that? Counting emails? If > > > so, I respectfully suggest you have erred gravely. If you want to > > > claim consensus; call a vote. To do otherwise is misrepresenting this > > > community and makes me regret voting for the OGB members. > > > > To which I would also add that if your definition of consensus is > > limited to those posting emails, it is horribly flawed to begin with. > > You and I both know there are significantly more people with voting > > rights than post on these lists. > > Perhaps I'm making distinctions that you're not, because I see "vote" > (formal adoption of a measure) as quite distinct from merely having > "consensus" on some matter. > > I hate to resort to this sort of measure, but since you're being > argumentative, my dictionary defines it this way: > > con.sen.sus \k*n-'sen(t)-s*s\ n [L, fr. consensus, pp. of consentire] 1: > group solidarity in sentiment and belief 2a: general agreement : UNANIMITY > 2b: collective opinion > > Note the lack of the implication that "consensus" must be based on any > sort of a vote. For the record, the OGB members are: > > James Carlson > Alan Coopersmith > Casper Dik > Glynn Foster > Stephen Lau > Rich Teer > Keith Wesolowski > > Of those, only Glynn Foster has decided to abstain from the pending > matter. We've heard from most of the others: > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/002991.html > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/003012.html > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/002889.html > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/002968.html > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-November/002918.html > > The only one I can't find a definitive reference for is Alan, but it's > only because I've gotten bored and the above clearly represents > "general agreement" to any rational definition of the phrase. > > And, by the way, if you feel the need to either vote for someone else > next time around or -- better yet -- draft an article of recall > against me, then you have my +1 on that. I have no need of the crap > and needless invective being hurled here, and I have plenty of real > work that I could be doing instead.
My point was that there was never any indication of who the consensus was amongst. To say that there is consensus without indicating whom is bound to create frustration. To me, by saying there was consensus without qualifying that it was amongst the OGB was tantamount to indicating that the community had done so; which it obviously has not. So, really, the URL list was nice, but wasn't necessary. I'm well aware of the "consensus" of the OGB. Just be careful to qualify your statement please. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
