[ppml] Consensus and voting: a proposal
Randy Bush wrote:
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Overall I like Sam's proposal. Would it be possible to do a
>> procedural experiment at the upcoming ARIN meeting? Specifically, if
>> the person running the straw polls thinks it would be helpful, could
>> they try asking for straw polls on specific points of objection
>> (raised in discussion or on PPML) if the first straw poll shows
>> enough objection to indicate a lack of consensus?
> what about those supporting also having to justify their support?
> goose and gander and all that?
Often the justification for support will be "I agree with what's in the
justification section of the policy proposal". If we could get
similarly detailed justification for opposition (which we usually do, in
the form of a PPML post), and then could see how many people oppose the
policy for each different reason (Sam's proposal) we'd be in a better
position to know which direction to take the policy proposal in order to
So I see a few different (possibly somewhat overlapping) categories:
* I support the policy proposal, for the reasons outlined in its
* I largely support the policy proposal, but for reason X (where X
has already been presented to PPML or to the mic).
* I oppose the policy proposal, for reason Y (where Y has already
been presented to PPML or to the mic).
* I oppose the policy proposal, for reason Z (where Z has already
been presented to PPML or to the mic)...
This seems to me very much like the way the Supreme Court comes to
decisions. They have someone writing for the majority, sometimes have
justices voting with the majority but with their own justifications (and
writing their own opinion), and one or more minority opinions written by
and voted for by those opposing the majority's view.
But all in all, we don't need something quite so complicated. :) If we
could simply get different straw polls to gauge *why* people oppose a
policy proposal, that would definitely help move the policy proposal