On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:59, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John Goerzen writes: > > Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the > > consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal, > > say one thing, and you, one member of debian-legal, say another thing, > > it seems that 1) we don't have a consensus, > > "I don't think that word means what you think it means". "Consensus" is > not universal agreement. A single dissenter does not break consensus.
Actually, IIRC, Russell Nelson is a Quaker -- a member of the Religious Society of Friends. In Quaker circles, consensus means unanimous agreement -- a single dissent does "block" consensus. Thus, it's considered very important to only block concensus when your conscience demands it -- not frivilously. At least, this is what I learned at a Quaker school in Philadelphia -- but IANAQ. I think this definition is actually useful. But whether it should be adopted depends on whether members of the list understand how to live in a consensus-based society -- when to block concensus, and when not to. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
