> Rob: * I wonder if it is really necessary to have a
> unanimous agreement on every issue?
Alain: Not necessarily.
> Rob: IMNSHO, the need to be unanimous
> is less than ideal as a standing policy.
Alain: I agree. Unanimity is often hard to achieve and
it only requires one dissenter to bog down the
process. Each participant is, in effect, given the
power of veto.
> Rob: Does anyone know of organizations/partnerships
> that have this requirement?
Alain: I couldn't say off-hand.
> Mark Rauterkus: I know of a few. One, a local
> planning forum, operates by a strict *********,
> and it is a crying pitty. It stinks.
Alain: We are talking about Unanimity. We are NOT
talking about Consensus. Consensus is not a synonym
for Unanimity.
> Not that this is a big threat or anything, but I
> won't join any organization that needs to operate
from
> its charter by unanimous agreement. That is a
> serious blunder to progress should it stay.
Alain: I agree that unanimity should NOT always be
required and that acting otherwise would be
fool-hardy. There are some fundamental issues that we
MUST all agree upon, however. Fundamentals like : we
are open source, we are not a partnership/corporation,
the GENERAL framework of our collaboration and of our
licencing, and perhaps some other fundamentals that
don't come to mind at this time.
Alain: In other words, we should be unanimous on the
key strategic aspects, but much more accomodating on
the tactical details. In essence, we should all agree
on where we are going and why, with some basic
guidelines for constructively evaluating the means
that will be proposed to achieve our goals (e.g. the
How ). And trust our good sense for the rest.
> And isn't it more or less appropriate depending on
> the number of partners.
Alain: Once we have our general framework in place, it
is not likely to change much if we do it right. There
are few of us now, so now is the best time to deal
with these issues. Participants who join later, if and
when they do, will do so according to how our group
defines itself. While, on the other hand, if we let
everything ride without setting down any principles,
we are in for ever more trouble as the number of
participants increases.
> Rob: Isn't a simple majority sufficient on minor
> issues and a 70-80% majority sufficient for major
> issues?
Alain: Define what you mean by "major issue". People
don't vote on fundamental inalienable rights and
freedoms, and they couldn't even if they wanted to. A
democracy cannot vote to become an dictatorship, for
example.
> Yes. Both the majority and super-majority (for
> stated issues) vote return works for me too.
Alain: In most cases, majority will be sufficient to
move forward. If someone disagrees on the fundamental
stuff, then that person should fork. If one or more
persons disagree irreconciably on some less
fundamental things, then they could compete to
demonstrate (in time) which solution is better.
Furthermore, the burden of proof belongs to the
dissenter(s). If proof is provided and/or if enough
dissention builds up around an issue, then we should
probably discuss this issue further.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
