Re: Fwd: FYI: Site Local

[Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>]

I think part of the problem is the distinction between

a) confirming whether an already determined consensus is correct, and

b) determing whether a consensus exists in the first place.

Mailing lists are ok for (a), much harder for (b).

That is: if you already think you know what the consensus is, it's
often possible to use the mailing list to confirm what you think you
already know, and the answer you get back is either "yep, that's the
consensus", or "no, that's not the consensus".  The test here is
fairly straightforward: if you get back a a nontrivial number of
objections (or a bunch of new issues), you don't have consensus.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to establish whether a consensus
exists, the mailing list is only a useful tool if everybody is willing
to play, and to play nicely at that.  Refusal to play nicely on the
mailing list is one of our ongoing problems (and that, in turn, stems
at least in part from a lack of shared understanding of what "play
nicely" would mean).

Finally [Rob's standard rant on prerequesites for consensus]: no
consensus process can cope with significant numbers of participants
who hold opposing entrenched positions that they are not willing to
change come hell or high water.  The process requires the participants
to have a shared goal of reaching a group answer than that is more
important to them than having their own favorite win.  Without that
shared goal, what you're left with is (at best) some form of voting.