Eric: Because some people will have different levels
of commitment and interest. Also metaCard might not
want to distribute its engine to everyone? (Scott?).
We can work out ways for this to be interesting to
metaCard as a charitable deduction, and I am happy to
do the research needed on that.
Alain: Did you get any feedback on this from Scott?
Adrian: MetaCard definitely don't want to give
everyone a MetaCard licence and in fact they once
suggested a two-level system - I haven't heard
anything against this system.
Alain: Partners and/or associates get a full-licence
while mere participants don't, I suppose.
Eric: So, what do you think? Super-majority decisions?
Involving associates and partners? or just partners? I
am indifferent and will draft exactly what you wish so
long as it serves the best interests of this project.
Alain: This is quite difficult to answer because we do
not have a hierarchy of well-established roles. I
guess you could say that it is totally egalitarian so
far. It may even remain that way. I am really not
sure.
Adrian: I would like to see majority votes as
consensus certainly isn't working.
Alain: I don't agree. We simply did not have the means
of ascertaining the opinion of our current
participants.
Adrian: We gained consensus on the licencing issue (at
one stage, I thought) and still wanted to put it to a
vote, also we never seem to know when we have a
consensus.
Alain: That is what voting should be used for. Voting
could help us establish what the consensus is at any
given time. A polling mechanism instead of a binding
ruling.
Adrian: So we need to vote and we're not going to get
everyone to vote on every issue.
Alain: Brings up the issue that some key members may
not always be around when someone decides to put
something to a vote. How long should the voting period
be to reasonably accomodate everyone? Besides, vote or
no vote, consensus or not, issues that we "resolve"
now will undoubtedly re-surface later on when more
people join in.
Adrian: I would then suggest a simple majority vote
with each member getting 1 vote each.
Alain: There are all kinds of problems with
majority-rule that I will not delve into here because
we have already discussed them several times in the
past. But, if it really is the only PRACTICAL approach
to group decision-making, then I will reluctantly give
up my fool's-dream of consensus-building.
Adrian: I would suggest that only partners get to
vote, unless the partners decide to open up the vote
to associates as well. There would of course be a
third type which is open to all - that's more of an
opinion poll though. Are there any arguments against
this?
Alain: What's the difference between a partner and an
associate? What distinguishes partners and associates
from the third group? How does one become part of the
inner-circle? Can this status be revoked by the group
if the group realizes later that it has made a
mistake? What if a minority sub-group of
partners/associates are dead-set against the promotion
of a participant to the inner-circle? Who sets the
voting agenda? (e.g. the 'what' and the 'when' of
voting)
Alain: I am sorry about being such a pain in the ass
about this. I suppose we could settle for voting and
forking as our decision-making schemes. But, given
that my research area is Communication &
Collaboration, I would personally be a little bit
disappointed if this turns out to be the outcome. I
will get over it, no doubt, and/or I will actualize my
vision of emergent collaboration in some other
context.
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
