Hi Pete,
Thanks for your reply. Please see below.
On 10/27/13 11:40 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/9/13 5:20 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
1. No matter how you slice the definition of rough consensus, if the
chair does not act in a fair and balanced way, the outcome will be
incorrect. This is what the appeals process is for, and I would suggest
mentioning it, perhaps in some detail.
I do allude to this at the end of section 3, and I've highlighted it a
bit better with one of the edits Dave suggested. But every time I
tried to elaborate the "detail", I found myself talking more about the
theory of appeals rather than the theory of consensus. I'm open to
some suggested text if you have some.
If you've got an updated version I'd take another look. On further
reflection, tho, detail might lead to precisely what you're concerned
about. What I was really aiming at was this:
The fact is that though rough consensus is a resilient process, it's
not bulletproof to every attack. This document can only go so far into
how it deals with problems. I've added a good bit to that section to
address Ted's comments. Hopefully you find that satisfying.
Those sentences are excellent. I think your point about looking at the
charter is key, because there is advice to area directors hidden there
about being clear on what is supposed to be done.
Eliot