Adrian: Hi all, I'm back, but only in digest version for now (reduces
the amount of bouncing mail).
Alain: Welcome back, Adrian.
Adrian: 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.
Alain: I am not worried. I expected such value-ladden issues to be
time-consuming, difficult and controversial, but I fully expect
(optimistic as always) that we will be able to surmount these
obstacles. I would be worried if we were NOT dealing with these
critical issues.
Adrian: In the past we have always relied on consensus to make a
decision.
Alain: Consensus is my choice as well. Some people don�t believe in it,
but the difficulties of voting as the arbitrator of our decisions may
very well persuade those "non-believers" to climb aboard the Consensus
boat, and use voting sparingly and only for consultative purposes. Or
so I will argue!
Adrian: 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.
Alain: The UFP infrastructure already provide some of the tools
necessary to poll members for their opinion. There is a form that
request votes, and there is a comment button associated with each page
of the infrastructure.
Adrian: 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.
Alain: This is indeed the crux of the problem. Who has the authority to
make decisions? What do we vote on? When? Who decides? How do we verify
and enforce the decisions arrived at? What do we do when enforcement
breaks down?
Adrian: It has quickly become apparent that anarchy is not a viable
option for our political structure, it's not working too well now.
Alain: If by anarchy you mean disorder, then I agree that it would be
foolhardy to proceed without some form of order. An order based on
anarchist principles is another matter. Did you know that anarchy was a
political movement?
Adrian: 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).
Alain: No, were not breaking apart. We are heatedly debating critical
issues that are value-ladden. All posts have been purposeful. No
personal attacks. All is well, I say!
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.
Alain: Absolutely! I am pleased that the importance of these issues is
being recognized. Despite the fact that it doesn�t add a single byte to
our Source Code, the Collaboration aspects of our group are just as
important as the programming.
Adrian: ... 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.
Alain: Exactly!
Adrian: 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.
Alain: You�re right, Adrian. And unfortunately I am partially to blame.
If the rules that we are setting down were displayed thereafter in our
web infrastructure, with consultative voting and commenting mechanisms
to boot, then we would not forget and run around in circles. In the
meantime, though, given the fact that FTP access to the UFP server is
up-and-running, anyone in the group can contribute Web pages and
Downloadable resources to the UFP server without my intervention.
Adrian: If in sometime in the future the group decides to change the
rules, then the rules are changed.
Alain: Yes, but with caution (of course).
Adrian: How to make this decision will need to be in the original
rules.
Alain: Agreed.
Adrian: I would suggest that the licence OpenCard is issued under is
unchangeable. This is because we'd need the consent of every author to
change the licence ...
Alain: Changes made later would indeed be controversial. Those who
contributed to OC before the change did so because they agreed with the
licencing terms as they were set out then. If you make a change, then a
contributor could argue that, if he had known ahead of time that these
new conditions would apply, then he would not have contributed what he
did.
Adrian: ... this includes one character patches.
Alain: I would not go this far!
Adrian: Perhaps we should look at how other cooperative organisations
work, I think you'll find all the successful ones have certain rules.
Alain: Good suggestion.
>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!
Alain: Thank you for the compliment, Adrian.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
