Re: MSM1, RIF1

On 18 Mar 2009, at 08:33, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>  
> wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2009, at 07:57, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>>> In these responses, I would like the phrase "as well as  
>>> implementation
>>> experience" removed, as when this was presented I was not convinced
>>> that the reason cited was compelling.
>>
>> It seems to have been generally accepted by a significant fraction  
>> of the
>> working group and thus worth including.
>
> Hello Bijan,
>
> The working process for this group is consensus.

Actually, the *goal* of the process is consensus. Consensus is clearly  
not required for decisions as we've just seen.

> There is not
> consensus on this point, and there is an adequate response to be made
> without it.

Are you speaking as chair or as the dissenter? This text seems to be  
chair speak but the prior message was, afaict, personal/on behalf of  
science commons.

This response is a response of the group and the group decision at  
this point was made. I think it's appropriate to detail the grounds on  
which it was made.

That's why it's not *in principle* in appropriate to mention the  
formal objection. It's just not useful or helpful in this case (i.e.,  
it doesn't make the FO more transparent or advance the discussion).

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#managing-dissent

"""In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of  
view, a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair  
mayrecord a decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least  
one Formal Objection) so that the group may make progress (for  
example, to produce a deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters  
cannot stop a group's work simply by saying that they cannot live with  
a decision. When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered  
the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and  
reasonable, the group should move on."""

I would argue, further, that a dissenter cannot expect that their  
dissent be promoted systematically by the group at every turn. I would  
expect the chairs to squash an attempt by a dissenter to  
systematically block the good faith enactment of a decision or to cast  
doubt on the decision more than the fact of a formal objection warrants.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:42:14 UTC