Hello Andreas,
On 2025-05-06 07:55, Andreas Enge wrote:
So that a motion does not pass, one either needs 1 person to disapprove
(which is a strong veto right), or 75% to not reply (which is a very
high
barrier).
Andreas
I would assert that providing veto functionality within such a large
voting body (teams) provides a setup too heavily weighted towards
conservative governance.
For example, in the EU horsetrading among the 27 member states means
that there are reciprocal measures that countries of all sizes can take.
I would consider a topic like `GCD 003` to have been a situation more
like Ireland's referendums on adopting EU legislation - whereby
deficiencies of the communications and campaign resulted in the need for
improved clarifications to resolve concerns.
However, there are more peculiar outcomes of using vetos.
For example, Wallonia wielded its federal veto (temporarily) to prevent
Belgium ratifying legislation.
More, troubling in Europe is the behaviour of anti democratic
memberstate Hungary and the very real threat of authoritarian dampeners
on European development (there are serious reforms to European
governance to resolve such harms).
In any case, the European system does have `subsidiarity`.
From what I understand, people are entirely free to have new Guix repo
using more inclusive naming.
... its worth noting that I havent articulated these things previously -
because I was not involved in the setup of the governance
(electronically or physically during Guix Days).
As such, it could well be that not getting things I prefer in life is an
outcome of my not being proactive enough upstream ;)
Kind regards,
Jonathan
