On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/26/05, geni <geniice at
gmail.com
<http://gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam at
inbox.org <http://inbox.org>>
wrote:
> > If an actual no-foolin' expert
dissents, then there isn't consensus
in the
> > first place.
> And if an actual no-foolin' expert
supports the consensus?
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people
can't come to a general
agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking
majority
with consensus.
"Consensus" is AFD jargon for "66% delete votes, for any reason or
none." Really. It is.
I know, but that doesn't mean I have to accept such newspeak. I can accept
the process (not sure I do yet), but I'll never accept the redefinition of
the word, and, especially when it's thrown around like this on the mailing
list, I'll occassionally point out the fact that the VFD process as
implemented has nothing to do with consensus.
I'm seeing myself describe how it actually works on AFD/VFU at present
and people here seem incredulous. Go to AFD,
participate in the
"discussions" and see for yourself if you don't believe what I'm
saying.
- d.