Hi reza, Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
reza <r...@housseini.me> writes: > 1. Consensus building needs necessary conditions to be met before > starting, this is not mentioned in the GCD process and should probably > be checked before every GCD The GCD process refers to <https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus>, which discusses this under “Conditions for consensus”. Maybe we should make it more prominent? > 2. In the necessary conditions the "core values" are mentioned, as far > as I know the core values of the guix project are not stated explicitly Right. > 3. Participation guidelines should be agreed upon and be met > 4. To also hear "quiet" voices, rounds are initiated where each member > comments on the issue without comments from the others (this may be hard > to achieve via email) Agreed. Before adopting the GCD process, some shared their experience with sociocracy, and one insight we got from this discussion is that processes like this are tailored to in-person meetings, where the distribution of speaking time can be more easily formalized. I’m not sure how to do this over email, but I agree there’s work to do (on GCDs 002 and 003, few people sent most of the messages). > 5. Several rounds may be used before finding a consensus or aborting > 6. I no consensus was found, the process should be analyzed carefully, > this may hint at short comings in the necessary conditions or core > values and values need clarification > 7. Instead of disagreement finer tuned stances should be taken I believe that’s what we’re aiming at with the discussion period, though that’s not visible if one only looks at the deliberation outcome. > 8. A very important role is the facilitator which guides and moderates > the discussion and summarizes the status of the discussion periodically Yeah. There’s the implicit assumption that the author(s) and sponsors of a GCD act as facilitators, but it’s probably not ideal. Thanks, Ludo’.
