Ian Eure <[email protected]> writes: > The asymmetry of expectations within the GCD process. We are expected > to accept the objection, while the objector is allowed to reject the > expectations of the project, ex. they seem to have blown up the > process and vanished rather than engaging to solve the single, minor, > material issue they raised. While I do not agree with invalidating > the objection, I also believe that a process tolerant of this > asymmetry is unlikely to result in any but uncontroversial changes.
this is truly a critical flaw. i think dissent should carry rules that ensure it's given the weight it's owed. what if dissenters are required to stand for continued membership after a period of two weeks, post-deliberation? if, after that time, both: a quorum is reached, and, that quorum unanimously calls for ouster, that person loses their membership, and, if after this period, no remaining dissenters are members, then the gcd proceeds as accepted. losing membership is a big deal, so the requirements should be high, hence unanimity. but at the same time, we need a way to move forward with very contentious issues. we have to accept the fact that our community may split over it, get out in front of it, and have a process for doing it. -bjc
