Adrian: Hi all, I'm back, but only in digest version for now (reduces the amount of bouncing mail). Having taken some time to sit back and see how we are working together without being a part of it has revealed some very worrying things. Adrian: In the past we have always relied on consensus to make a decision. This has often been a problem when people don't comment (do they agree or not), but it is now proving to be a major problem. We have come across our first real disagreement, where it's not just a case of, I disagree but I don't really mind. It's now, I disagree, do it my way. We have no mechanism to deal with this and we need one if we are to succeed. Adrian: It has quickly become apparent that anarchy is not a viable option for our political structure, it's not working too well now. Our group is beginning to show signs of breaking apart and we've hardly started, there have been some rather strong words posted here lately (though thankfully none personal, just purposeful). Adrian: For any group to work it needs to set down rules that describe what is expected of its members and what consequences not living up to those expectations incurs. This applies to our group too. These rules will cover not only expected behaviour and such things, but licensing issues as well. ie The official version of OpenCard is distributed under this licence, like it or lump it. If you don't like it, don't contribute. We are in the process of setting rules like this, but we are not setting them down in cement so even if we make the rules we'll run around in a circle and start debating them again. If in sometime in the future the group decides to change the rules, then the rules are changed. How to make this decision will need to be in the original rules. I would suggest that the licence OpenCard is issued under is unchangable. This is because we'd need the consent of every author to change the licence (this includes one character patches). Adrian: Perhaps we should look at how other cooperative organisations work, I think you'll find all the succesful ones have certain rules. >>>Alain: YES and no. There could be some bickering. A >>>difference of opinion concerning the importance of the >>>contribution made by someone that wishes to be cited >>>as one of the authors. > > Anthony: Alain, in that event we would have the list decide on what to > do. > > Alain: OK, but what kind of decision-making process are you > envisionning? A voting CGI in order to establish the opinion of the > majority and act accordingly? This could lead to Majority-Rule. > Bottom-line is that we are going to have to discuss the (political) > issue of decision-making, as part of the Collaboration section of our > group, before, during and after we decide which licencing terms to > adopt. Adrian: This is exactly what we need to cater for (and more!). :) Well done!
