Re: Call For Consensus Process Review

> On May 12, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> To keep this CFC process in line with what we are proposing for the CFC process, are you saying that you cannot live with the proposal as it is?
>  
> AWK


Grin.   Nicely done.     Exactly the right question. 

I guess the answer is that I would like to see more discussion. 


> This may result in shorter meetings, or it may result in more focused meetings, that is yet to be determined.  The group does believe that this will allow more participants to be active, just as you are being active right now in a way that you otherwise haven’t been able to be.

 

The problem is that - since I wasn’t present for the full discussion - I don’t think I should get a chance to object.    This does allow broader participation but unless people read all the emails — and the discussion is held entirely by email — a person objecting is objecting with out participating fully in the discussion.    

I don’t know the answer — but broader participation by people who don’t invest the time to be fully informed - does not feel like it will give good results.   We already post everything out for comments — so we get the broadest participation.

What we need is careful considered participation — that takes in the broader input — and then discerns carefully,  debates and thinks things through carefully and then comes to consensus.     I would not give up the careful, informed, considered,  participation in favor of broad input or consensus by people who don’t have the time to take the time to be there for the full discussions.  (and that includes me). 

So I think I am in the category of external input — and I don’t feel I should get a consensus consideration. 


Does that help ?

Gregg