Hey Steve! On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 08:51:00AM +0000, Steve George wrote: > The manul provides an introduction to the principle, it doesn't deal > with the specifics in the specific context. I completely agree! From other experience I know of distinguishing "levels of agreement": - I agree and am willing to take the lead, - I agree, - I am indifferent, - I do not agree but can live with the proposal, - I can not live with the proposal (veto).
> The reason I'm pointing at this is that _when_ there is conflict, > there should be clear rules so everyone knows how to deal with them. This is exactly what I was having in mind. We can repeat our tautology of consensus finding as much as we want, but when conflict eventually escalates we better be prepared with a clearly laid out process. > - Who is involved > - What is the process > - How is deadlock resolved >From yet other experiences I know that whenever groups lack such processes, seniority or merit dominate informal hierarchies. > This is exactly what you did for the GCD process. I'm asking for the > same thing here, that the process is defined. My suggestion would be to have a mediation team that helps conflicting parties reach consensus (or help them escalate the matter to the broader community for decision finding). How would you imagine our structure resolving emerging conflicts? Have a nice week! gabriel / gabber
