Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: PMD discussion

>To your point on a small subset getting 100% majority, the indication of the
>straw poll from the May interim is that down selecting below 5 PMDs this is
>going in the wrong direction to achieve consensus. The poll indicated that
>the 5 PMD set was favored by roughly 2 to 1 compared to the closest
>alternative of 3 PMDs. Further, I believe that the 3 PMDs are not the same 3
>among the supporters of that choice, which subdivides the support. From my
>perspective an inclusive approach will work better than an exclusive
>approach in getting to consensus. In an inclusive approach you get the PMDs
>you prefer, while others also get the PMDs they prefer. If you really
>believe the market will be best served by some subset of the PMDs, you are
>free to use only those. 

I remember that the straw poll was conducted with "Chicago" rules. I
voted for both five and three, not because I favor 5 PMDs, but I felt either
was progress to a managable number (we had 20+ proposals before Ottawa).

I personally would like to see only two PMDs, but keep an open mind
to three.


 Jonathan Greenlaw                       voice: (916) 785-5334
 Hewlett Packard - WND R&D               fax:   (916) 785-1954
 8000 Foothills Blvd. MS 5681 Roseville, CA 95747-5681
 Unix to Unix: jonathan_greenlaw@xxxxxx