> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > 2008/9/8 Ross Gardler <ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk>:
> >> geni wrote:
> >>> 2008/9/8 Ross Gardler <ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk>:
> >>>> I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be
> >>>> part of them).
> >>>
> >>> Good. Because if we had followed your methods they would probably not
> >>> yet have been made.
> >> Sorry, I don't understand.
> >>
> >> The methods I describe are in use in a large number of highly succesful
> >> communities and, according to a previous mail from Thomas to be
> >> identical to the one (informally) used to reach the current proposal,
> >> i.e. lazy consensus.
> >>
> >> Am I missing something or is this merely a lack of clarity in what I was
> >> saying.
> >
> > You also proposed voting on things - that's the part that wouldn't be practical.
>
> Ahhh.. I see.
>
> I said "Should it be impossible to come to a unaminous consensus with
> respect to a proposal then a vote can be called."
>
> Let me clarify:
>
> A vote should *only* be called when either:
>
> a) it is legally required
> b) someone continues to object to a proposal without it being possible
> to find an agreeable alternative.
>
> In other words a vote is *only* called to remove a block that someone
> puts into the lazy consensus appraoch.
>
> I am *not* suggesting a vote be called in *any* circumstances other than
> when it is impossible to get consensus.
>
> Trust me, we are in agreement, I just didn't express things as clearly
> as I could.
>
> Ross

It may be worth skulking around the IRC channel for both WMUK and the wikimania oxford
bid. Given the close nature in terms of membership between the two, discussion occurs in
both channels though we try to direct the right discussion to the right channel.

---

Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone Try it Now