Re: Coordinator timeouts (was Re: Managers, addressses and the like)

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Mark,

I did not imply that the conversation didn't take place, I said that no decision
was taken on it. That is all.

Consensus, as we have seen recently, is a slippery and plastic thing. Votes are
votes. And minutes that are oriented to recording precise decisions (and up for
challenge/amendment, of course) are my preference. If the body wants to take a
different approach, I will of course accept the majority view. I didn't have
time to produce an attempt at verbatim minutes for such a dense agenda as the
one we partially hacked through in Mt. Laurel. I'm not sure it would have added
much if I had tried.

I hope I didn't "decide what was voted on" as chair. I certainly gave a lead
(why chair otherwise?) but I tried to bend over backwards to give everyone an
opportunity to make proposals, explore different ways of resolving debates, and
to ensure that concrete, precise decisions were made.

If anyone had said "I want this proposal to be voted" or "that seems like a
decision, does anyone have any objection to minuting it as such?", it is
inconceivable that I would have done anything other than ensure that occurred.
This did not happen in the case you are raising. In my view and memory it was a
glancing adjunct to the agenda point entitled "Participant timeouts", where the
proposal voted concerned ... participant timeouts. That is why it didn't make it
into already lengthy decision-oriented minutes.

Can I emphasize that I am not trying to take a legalistic or discussion-blocking
approach. I do think it's important to distinguish proposals, debates and
decisions. But if a decision is based on insufficient debate (like the decision
to enable one-shotness) then I will be the last person to jump up and say: "we
shouldn't talk about this, it's already been decided".

Why don't we vote your proposal on coordinator timeouts as recorded in the
recent e-mail exchange, at the next meeting? You already have my vote on this
substantive point. Then there won't be any ambiguity.

I think the same should go for several issues discussed recently in the very
stimulating (I am not being sarcastic) post-Mt. Laurel exchanges. Not least
because silence in discussion from those who are considering their view or have
limited time to contribute on the e-mails should not be equated with
"consensus".

Alastair

Mark Little wrote:

> >  The minutes recorded the decisions of the meeting. As you admit, no such
> decision
> > was taken. I have no intention of capturing your every thought for
> posterity when
> > taking minutes of a working body.
>
> First of all this was not just a "thought", so please try not to be
> condescending.

From the master of condescension himself!

> Secondly, it is inaccurate to say that no decision was
> taken: no vote was taken, but certainly the people involved in the
> coversation decided that it was valid to send the coordiator timeout
> downstream.
>
> I expected the minutes of the meeting to contain more than just
> the votes that were
> taken. In the past (e.g., when Peter Furniss took minutes) they have
> recorded more than just the things that we (or more importantly you as the
> chair) decided that we should vote on. Granted these are important, but as
> we have seen over the last week or so, things that were said at meetings but
> which weren't voted on explicitly did have a general concensus.
>
> I realise that not everything that is said in these meetings can be put down
> in the minutes simply because of time and space considerations. My original
> comment was not meant as a
> criticism of your chairing of the meeting or of your minute taking, but more
> of the fact that you appeared to imply that the conversation did not take
> place. It did, and was on precisely the topic I have referred to previously
> in email.
>
> >
> > If you want a stenographic record, please feel free to get HP to pay for
> the court
> > recorder. I wish you luck.
>
> Thank you for this constructive addition to the discussion!
>
> Mark.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Dr. Mark Little (mark@arjuna.com)
> Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
> Phone +44 191 2064538
> Fax   +44 191 2064203
begin:vcard 
n:Green;Alastair
tel;cell:+44 795 841 2107
tel;fax:+44 207 670 1785
tel;work:+44 207 670 1780
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.choreology.com
org:Choreology Ltd
version:2.1
email;internet:alastair.green@choreology.com
title:Managing Director
adr;quoted-printable:;;13 Austin Friars=0D=0A;London;;EC2N 2JX;
fn:Alastair Green
end:vcard