From keld Sat Jun 1 15:02:07 1996 Received: (from keld@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05363; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 15:02:07 +0200 Message-Id: <199606011302.PAA05363@dkuug.dk> From: keld@dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 15:02:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: JimIsaak "(SC22WG15.835) WG15 Electronic Decision Making, updated to reflect May Discussion (N649r)" (May 31, 18:42) X-Charset: ISO-8859-1 X-Char-Esc: 29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mnemonic-Intro: 29 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91) To: JimIsaak , sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG15.835) WG15 Electronic Decision Making, updated to reflect May Discussion (N649r) Cc: follett@access.digex.net, rinehuls@access.digex.net JimIsaak writes: > If there is controversy over a proposed change, but substantial > consensus exists (for this, affirmative feedback is also needed) > then the proposal will have been considered to be approved. > > If there not substantial consensus, the issue will either be > restructured and a new ballot initiated, or refereed to a > discussion of the Working Group. I do not think we should go forward with a document if there is anybody against it. Email discussions are not as efficient as meeting discussions. I have seen many instances of just one member body being against a decision and then moving everybody onto their side in a meeting. Keld