Mark Rauterkus: Other have stated (I'm in
disagreement)
> Alain: In my humble opinion, we need to be unanimous
> on the fundamentals, and we can settle for
majorities
> of varying degrees for the less fundamental issues.
Mark Rauterkus: Can you detail all the "fundamentals"
in full view ...
Alain: I certainly hope so. Nothing behind closed
doors. Full accountability. Anything that concerns the
group should be visible and discussable.
Mark Rauterkus: ... in advance?
Alain: We started to do so, several months ago.
Several debates raged on about the various "political"
aspects of our collaboration. These debates were often
referred to as "the Constitutional stuff".
Mark Rauterkus: I think I would need to see such a
tight list ...
Alain: The "constitutional" stuff will indeed take
time to elaborate, discuss, debate, and revise. I do
NOT contend that I have all the answers, nor even a
list of all of the questions or issues that will be
deemed fundamental.
Mark Rauterkus: ...and then throw more thought into
the matters.
Alain: The "constitutional" stuff is essential. I am
glad to see that it is spontaneously re-surfacing
after a period of relative sleep. We felt that we
needed to progress on the technical front so as the
reassure everyone that "real" (hear throat clearing)
work is getting done.
Mark Rauterkus: Otherwise, no thanks for the STRICT
CONSENSUS.
Alain: I suspect that you mean "no thanks for the
strict UNAMINITY", because a consensus is a general
agreement that MOST but not ALL participants agree to.
Dissenting views are tolerated and taken into account
in the final formulation of the agreement.
Mark Rauterkus: We can disagree.
Alain: It is healthy that we do.
Mark Rauterkus: I can be the odd man out. I sorta
expect it.
Alain: Non-conformist, eh! Glad to hear it. I
consider myself one too. If in doubt about my
non-conformity, then consider the solitary uphill
battle that I have been waging to clarify the word
consensus !
Mark Rauterkus: To get the called for list started,
here are some ideas. Things where there might need to
be 100% partner agreement:
Alain: Good initiative.
> 1. To close the organization.
Alain: Doubtful that we have to enshrine this in our
organizational agreement. Those who wish to desist
simply leave. As long as there is one or more members
that wish to continue, who are we (as desistors) to
insist that the organization must be dissolved?
> 2. To shorten the period of open polls for voting.
Alain: Off-hand, this strikes me as little bit
un-democratic, but I suppose we could act in this
manner if the polling period becomes too long. Endless
debate would indeed be counter-productive, especially
if we stipulate that a strict unanimity is required,
and hence allow ONE dissenter, for example, to hold up
the whole process. That's why a majority/consensus is
better than unanimity.
> 3. ???
Alain: A preliminary list to illustrate what I think
will probably be considered fundamental :
1. We are open source.
2. We are a free association of individuals.
3. We are not a corporation.
4. We are non-commercial, non-business, non-profit.
5. We are not partners.
6. We do not bear any responsibility for each other.
7. No one is liable for anything.
8. Contributions to FreeCard are irrevocable gifts.
9. ... etc ... (for now)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
