Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Regarding the no consensus decision ofPRO
> I've been participating and monitoring this policy developing process, and I
> would like to point out some of the errors for our future process. This is
> my personal view, and it has nothing to do with my company.
> Your comments are welcomed.
>
> First, the decision making of chair.
> Before the decision was announced, there were internal debate among some of
> NIR members regarding the meaning of "substantial objection". Is
> 4:4:1(against: : for : conditional) opinions that were submitted during
> public comment period substantial objection? Some member asked for more time
> to have discussion on the validity of objections and discuss more if they
> were substantial objection. However, the chair ignored some members opinion
> and send final decision.(My feeling toward this action is the chair lost its
> neutral position and was pushing toward predetermined course.)
> Sending final announcement while debates were going on is definitely wrong.
It was exactly for keeping the neutral position that I went ahead with
the annoucement. For an open and fair process, it would not be proper
for the Chair to discuss consensus with the proposer before making the
announcement in order to maintain impartiality. The Chair must consider
the situation of the whole community, as well as the proposer.
In making the consensus decision, Chair discusses with the Co-Chair and
decides whether there was a consensus on the proposal or not.
The Chair and the Co-Chair may chose to consult other parties and take
in the advice, but the final decision is their choice. I have discussed
this matter with David, and also informally with some other SIG
chair/co-chair, and the decision was made as a result of this.
> Specially without defining the meaning of "substantial objection" and
> without discussing if the objections raised were valid and
substantial. (How
> can four objections out of 1,000 members be substantial?)
I understand that you have a different view about "substantial
objection" from me, and I have discussed this with you so many times.
Your arguement about 4 objections out of 1,000 members is valid if the
membership vote was taken. In that case, I agree with your point.
Since we are not taking a vote here, and since it is a consensus based
decision, it is not simply counting the number of comments for vs the
number of comments against.
The whole idea of this process is to reach a general agreement through
discussions, so the content of the discussions is an important factor in
making the decision. As you can see from the state of the mailing list,
we are still having very active discussions over this.
Mailing list discussions are not suitable for counting numbers because
not all 1,000 members subscribe to the mailing list and you really never
know how many of them are actually active. If you want to count the
numbers, voting is more effective, which certainly could be an option.
Perhaps, you can make a proposal at the next meeting if you prefer that
kind of process.
The reality is, for this particular proposal, we are following the
consensus based decision making process, not the membership vote. So, I
have followed the logics based on this process in making my decision.
> Second, the decision of chair.
> The decision of chair contain technical error. Like I mentioned earlier, the
> chair only observed public comment period and concluded that "There is no
> clear general consensus for the proposal." The chair totally ignored
> previous consensus among NIR SIG and the meeting result of AMM. If the chair
> is to make the final call, she should have taken whole process into
> consideration as well as public comment period. She didn't, and the result
> was totally opposite.
I do note that there was a consensus at NIR SIG and also at AMM.
However, the consensus at NIR SIG and AMM can be reversed if there are
substantial objections. That is the whole point on having the comment
period.
Even though consensus is reached at the meeting, substantial objections
on the mailing list is an indication that not enough discussions took
place at the meeting.
I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
Izumi Okutani