Im not sure a platform voting consensus (term remains abstract) on every change is realistic. Call new votes with goal of overturning.
-
-
Replying to @bradleymeck @wycats and
I see a choice of words here of consensus vs vote, but see little diff in meetings
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradleymeck @wycats and
Quorum vs unanimous is a bigger diff
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bradleymeck @wycats and
Within TC39 obtaining consensus isn’t a one-time thing. It’s necessary to maintain consensus on an issue through the entire process.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
How is this diff from multiple votes?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradleymeck @awbjs and
Each meeting when we decide to move things, interested parties declare support/dissent/remain silent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradleymeck @awbjs and
To me this both looks and sounds like a vote on the current requested action.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradleymeck @awbjs and
There is no "vote down", just objections to the current technical state w/ concrete steps to improve.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @bradleymeck and
Another problem with votes is that it pressures ambivalent/uninformed people to vote, and they tend to sense current bandwagon and hop on.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @littlecalculist @wycats and
Result is to demoralize a (potentially temporarily) minority view, leading to less ambitious results.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Voting can also be used to "just end it already" and people vote for the position they perceive to be in the majority.
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.