> 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: Yes, the topics need to be discussed, I'm more worried that we have
no measures to deal with problems that occur now and in the future.
> 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: Consensus is good in theory and it is my choice for a first option.
But consensus will not always be reached, so we need a backup way of doing
things.
> 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: Yes, we can get input in many ways, but some people just don't
input and we are left wondering if we have a consensus or not. We could
disregard the opinions of non-active members but what determines a
non-active member?
> 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?
Precisely, we need to answer all these questions.
> 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: I knew I should have been more careful with my words. Not having
set rules isn't working currently so we need to set some rules.
> 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: We're not breaking apart, we're displaying some of the warning
signs of a group that's about to break apart. Strong debates over a very
central idea where the decision affects people's participation. I think we
can sort out this debate but there will be others and we need to learn from
this so we can deal with the next problem easier.
> 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: Now we just need to decide which licence to choice and we're making
progress on that.
> 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: You are certainly not to blame for our lack of a "constitution".
We're just not setting down specific rules so we can't put them on the web.
We need to prepare a draft constitution for debate I think. If there's a
volunteer then I'd appreciate them taking it on, otherwise I'll provide a
skeleton draft as I don't have the knowledge or experience to come up with a
decent draft.
> 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: Yep, and that caution is added by not making it too easy to change
the rules - and not too hard either.
> 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: If someone releases a patch that we use under one licence we need
to get their permission to change the licence it is released under,
regardless of the size of the patch.
> 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.
Adrian: Perhaps we should start with the Linux group as they seem to be
doing pretty well. Any others we should look at?
>>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.
Adrian: You're very welcome. You have earnt many compliments that have not
been given, as have many people in this group.
