On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 11/28/2013 3:18 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
I think that two consensus calls should be taken at this stage:
I concur with the precedence concerns that have already been raised, and
also wonder about trying to orchestrate a sequence of consensus calls
designed to move the group through a process that will get some folk to
change their positions, in order to get the matter resolved.
The simplest form of such a sequence that I've heard about is to note the
impasse, then ask whether the group does want to get the matter resolve.
That's likely to get a strong rough consensus yes. Then note it's not going
to resolve until folk change their current positions. The example I heard
about did then produce a preferred choice.
No doubt, the current situation has folk who are more tenacious, so perhaps
the sequence of calls needs to be a bit more elaborate.
BTW, as distasteful as it might be, is there a reason that making /both/ MTI
would not work?
It's one of the proposed choices. However, it's important to understand that in
in this case, many people more don't want X than do want Y.
-Ekr