On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/28/2013 3:18 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> I think that two consensus calls should be taken at this stage: > > > I concur with the precedence concerns that have already been raised, and > also wonder about trying to orchestrate a sequence of consensus calls > designed to move the group through a process that will get some folk to > change their positions, in order to get the matter resolved. > > The simplest form of such a sequence that I've heard about is to note the > impasse, then ask whether the group does want to get the matter resolve. > That's likely to get a strong rough consensus yes. Then note it's not going > to resolve until folk change their current positions. The example I heard > about did then produce a preferred choice. > > No doubt, the current situation has folk who are more tenacious, so perhaps > the sequence of calls needs to be a bit more elaborate. > > BTW, as distasteful as it might be, is there a reason that making /both/ MTI > would not work? It's one of the proposed choices. However, it's important to understand that in in this case, many people more don't want X than do want Y. -Ekr