Howdy,
Brian Moore wrote:
> We suggest that, if after three votes during our teleconference next
> Friday we are still deadlocked, we do the following.
I assume we're all still in agreement that this is a suggested
time to declare deadlock -- I don't agree to setting any predefined
automatic criteria for invoking it (there are too many possibilities
of extenuating circumstances!).
As I said on the last teleconf, there is a very real possibility
we will get deadlocked because we have strong candidates. In that
case, we really are using random measures to pick between them,
but playing it out in terms of randomly weighting inputs. I find
that an uncomfortable thought, and truly hope we will be able to
get to consensus before we get anywhere near having to to this. But,
if we do, I would like there to be a follow-on input on a separate
question, with the results noted somewhere in non-public archives:
namely, who is willing to assert strong OBJECTION to the candidate
selected. If there are no strong objections, we simply couldn't
pick between good candidates. If there are strong objections,
it's cause for pause.
Finally, I appreciate the effort that you & Gerry have put into
this mechanism (having spent some time thinking about it and dead-ending
myself), but I do not think it's guaranteed to break deadlock
if we have less than perfect attendance & participation. I'm simply
making an observation, hoping for perfect attendance & participation,
not suggesting any tweaks.
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary...
... or was that the other way around?"
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================