On 10/26/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com http://gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at inbox.org http://inbox.org>
wrote:
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then there isn't consensus
in the
first place.
And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking
majority
with consensus.
"Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or none." Really. It is.
I know, but that doesn't mean I have to accept such newspeak. I can accept the process (not sure I do yet), but I'll never accept the redefinition of the word, and, especially when it's thrown around like this on the mailing list, I'll occassionally point out the fact that the VFD process as implemented has nothing to do with consensus.
I'm seeing myself describe how it actually works on AFD/VFU at present
and people here seem incredulous. Go to AFD, participate in the "discussions" and see for yourself if you don't believe what I'm saying.
- d.