Assessing consensus in the CG Charter

[evanp]

The charter boilerplate says this:

This group will seek to make decisions where there is consensus. Groups are free to decide how to make decisions (e.g. Participants who have earned Committer status for a history of useful contributions assess consensus, or the Chair assesses consensus, or where consensus isn't clear there is a Call for Consensus [CfC] to allow multi-day online feedback for a proposed course of action). It is expected that participants can earn Committer status through a history of valuable contributions as is common in open source projects. After discussion and due consideration of different opinions, a decision should be publicly recorded (where GitHub is used as the resolution of an Issue).

It doesn't seem like we can just leave this open. I think we could maybe follow a process like this:

• Chair(s) assess consensus
• Chair(s) can delegate consensus assessment to leaders of a task force (which seems like it'd be a big overlap with "Committers" used here)
• Chair(s) or task force leads use CfC when consensus isn't clear.

I think the "straw poll" mechanism we've used in the past is one way to assess consensus; there are probably others.