cvs commit: src/rescue/rescue Makefile

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:02:56PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > > So this consensus isn't at all all that consensual.
> > >
> > > "Consensus" does not mean "Universal Agreement."
> >
> > It does mean "general agreement", so if you don't take universal
> > literally then for all practical purposes it does mean universal
> > agreement.
> 
> Errr.. huh? Here is the American Heritage Dictionary defnition:
> 
> NOUN:1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
> 2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
> 
> In a group this size, with as many smart people as we have
> participating, you're never going to get universal agreement. In
> addition to the fact that it's not what consensus means in the first
> place. :)

Yes, you can. The agreement is reached when everybody accepts the
outcome. This is unrelated to whether everybody likes the outcome.

> > This is also the crux: we never formally agreed on anything, because
> > we cannot deal with the consequence: which is to unify all knobs. So,
> > the only understanding we reached was that we have slightly more
> > separatists than we have consolidators. But as long as we don't unify
> > the usage of the existing knobs, this topic will be repeated ad
> > nauseam.
> >
> > Since I'm not going to change the knobs, I cannot force an outcome.
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but with an attitude like that, how do
> you get out of bed in the morning?

Willpower, eased by the habit of getting out of bed in the afternoon.

> The consensus was that we'd use
> seperators for all NEW knobs, and go back and deal with the rest if time
> allows.

Yes, the first part of the sentence I remember. I can't recall the
second part. If my memory is failing on me and we did in fact reach
that consensus, then there's nothing to argue about. Otherwise we
still need to get clear ruling on that last part.

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel at xcllnt.net