At 10:01 PM -0400 on 7/25/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>From: DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: OODL - Politics - Re Adrian
>Reply-to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>Alain: Consensus is my choice as well. Some people dont
>>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!
>
>Anthony: Alain, there are two ways to get consensus:
>1.Argument 2.Force
>
>Alain: There are many ways to arrive at a consensus, particularly if
>everyone participating in the consensus-building process are reasonable
>and are thus prepared to make some compromises in order to achieve the
>goals of the group.
If I am right and you believe the opposite of what I believe, why should I
compromise with you? Or if you are right and I believe the opposite of you,
why should you compromise?
Of course, there are thigns where there is no "right" and no "wrong." Those
can be compromised on. There are some things that are not important, and
can be compromised on (the color of an icon, for example).
But when two groups of people, with radicaly different, mutally exclusive
ideas or approaches, with neither being able to convince the other, exist,
no compromise should be attempted: It'll wind up as making both sides
unhappy. I'd argue ti's time for a fork.
>
>Anthony: And the argument way is _quite_ difficult. Consider arguing
>with 30 people, all from different backgrounds, all with different
>opinions, about if a special distribution arrangement should be made.
>Would there ever be a consensus? I think not.
>
>Alain: I disagree. It happens all of the time. I have participated in
>several medium-size groups that achieve this �miracle�. Besides,
>difficult or not, what other alternative do we have?
Fork. Consider some of the scenarios I presented. Could a consensus ever be
reached? Remember, hundreds backing each side... could everyone ever agree?
As another example, take our clash between altruism vs. egoism: Will we
ever reach a consensus, other than that we do not agree?
>
>Anthony: That leaves the other way, which none of us (I hope!) want.
>
>Alain: Consensus has nothing to do with the use of force. Force is used
>when some party has more power than another, and wishes to exercise its
>power instead of negotiating with the weaker party. Consensus, on the
>other hand, is about negotiation among equals such that everyone �say�
>is taken into account in the final decision. Consensus is not
>equivalent to Unanimity, as many falsely believe.
In other words, consensus, by your definition, is the ultimate compromise?
I want no part. (If we want to debate this, let's take it to OCPD)
Can you have a consensus with dissent?
>
>>Alain: This is indeed the crux of the problem.
>>Who has the authority to make decisions?
>
>Anthony: The person doing the work, I'd argue.
>
>Alain: So you make all of the decisions concerning your interpreter,
>Uli makes all of the decisions concerning OC file system, I make all of
>the decisions concerning the collaboration infrastructure, etc !!!
Yes.
>Who
>makes the decisions for the aspects that affect the whole group?
Someone who should be given the ownership of that aspect.
>Who
>makes the decisions for elements of OC that will be accomplished by
>many people at once?
Someone.
>How much does one have to contribute to a
>particular product of OC to be able to make decisions concerning it?
The person who starts the product -- and no doubt does most of the work
getting it delivered, at least in the first version.
>Does everyone create their own individual product(s)?
Yes. But since they are under a licence allowing it, they can easily be
integrated into OpenCard -- which would be controlled by one person.
I would not mind if we voted on who that person is...and if we had
procedures to replace them, etc.
>
>>What do we vote on?
>
>Anthony: Not much, I'd hope.
>
>Alain: Does a particular patch or module or whatever get included into
>the Standard OC Distribution? (for example)
That person who is in charge of OpenCard.
>
>>Alain: How do we verify and enforce the decisions
>>arrived at? What do we do when enforcement breaks down?
>
>Anthony: Best would be to avoid such situations.
>
>Alain: What you are suggesting, in fact, is that we have no structure
>whatsoever. Anybody can do anything. And if someone doesn�t like it,
>then they can fork off. Pretty soon we will have not only many versions
>of OC, but also many versions of OC elements. And no means of deciding
>what goes into the Standard OC Distribution.
No. There would be one person who says "This is the standard version" It is
like that in most OpenSource projects. Linus, for example, says "this is
Linux."
I would not mind electing that person, and having procedures to remove that
person -- provided forking is allowed.
>
>Anthony: But the ultimate end enforcement of any contract is a court.
>
>Alain: Litigation sucks. The only people that profit from it are the
>lawyers and such. And it only occurs when all other means have failed
>and the parties involved are unwilling to negotiate. Most or all of
>this can be avoided if we structure our collaboration carefully.
I'm arguing for a structure in which litigation would hopefully be unessasary.
>Anthony: Not the best of them, depending on who's definition of anarchy
>you go on.
>
>Alain: You are entitled to your opinion, Anthony.
I'd love to hear your definition, but on OCPD, please.
>Anthony: I agree. Though I can see how someone might of gotten that
>impression from some of my posts.
>
>Alain: And from this reponse too, probably!
No doubt :)
>
>Anthony: I plan to fix that with a post on forking.
>
>Alain: Forking does not resolve the issue of what goes into the OC
>standard Distribution.
It does, in part: Anyone who does not like it does not have to live with it.
I'm going to have to write up a complete proposal -- trying to do a
piecemail work in multiple emails is silly.
