Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review?

Jackson Muthili jacksonmuthi at
Wed Oct 26 12:08:16 UTC 2016

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Andrew Alston
<Andrew.Alston at> wrote:
> I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be
> controversial, but this is how I see it.
> It is not – and cannot be – the job of the co-chairs to drive a process
> towards consensus.

english not everyones 1st language and i doubt this is what serge meant.

off-course chairs cannot shove consensus down peoples throats

> It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to
> read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus
> (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the
> proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the
> requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion
> to withdraw or not).
> Why do I say that the co-chair’s cannot strive towards consensus:
> To do so implies that the co-chair’s have taken a position on the policy –
> and that they should ever do – it compromises neutrality.  If the community
> by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast
> majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair’s to
> drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of
> finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the
> community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should
> die as a result.
> The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair’s to start driving
> towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery slope
> where the neutrality mandate given to the chair’s becomes a moot point.  I
> don’t think we want to be in that situation personally.
> Andrew

More information about the RPD mailing list