Re: ERB votes on error handling

On Wed, 7 May 1997 15:32:04 -0400 Bill Smith said:
>I object strenusously to both the outcome of this "vote" and the process
>itself. Clearly consensus was not even remotely reached on this issue.
>Any review of the archives would show this as would a simple count of
>the "votes".

Just to clarify -- the ERB acted today, as we have since we began,
under the rules of procedure we adopted at the outset. Those rules
do not require consensus either in the WG or in the ERB; in order to
prevent logjams and stalemates, they allow for binding decisions to be
made by an absolute majority of the membership of the ERB.  This has
worked out better in practice than virtually any other method I have
experienced or seen, and though I was in the minority on this
question I strenuously defend the process as it is currently
constituted.  There are several reasons this WG and ERB (soon to be
this SIG and WG) have been able to get through as much work as we have.
One is the leadership and skill of Jon Bosak.  One is the very good
set of process rules Jon developed at the formation of the group.
And one is the reservoir of good will and trust that we've been
able to develop.

Related to that last point, it may be worth pointing out that all
of the dissenters on this question expressly recognized the strength
of arguments supporting the draconian rule, and in a very real sense
I think the ERB, at least, is far closer to consensus on this issue
than appears from the vote count.

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 1997 20:24:24 UTC