Decision-making processes in real life are not different. The reached
conclusions depend on the stamina of the partipants' voices, bladders,
and ability to stay awake. They still run in circles, but the process
of consensus-finding makes better use of physical exhaustion. It is
also easier to yield to a person with dominating voice, bladder, ability
to stay awake and personality than to letters on the screen.
In particular if those letters on the screen actually come to other
conclusions than oneself does. One can accept a different personality
with different priorities easier when composed of obviously different
blood and flesh and bones instead of just the same letters as oneself is
(no, I don't want to promote HTML mail for our discussions).
It makes no sense to try to decide such things in a fixed short
period. such as a hackers' meeting. (I must also reject this for
personal reasons, since rapid-fire discussion automatically excludes
me.)
That's why I proposed giving veto powers to you.
Veto power is not constructive, but destructive. It implies rewinding
processes and efforts, not directing them. So it is a poor substitute
for actual participation in a process. Good to have as a last resort,
but not particularly productive.