Re: Why Unanimous Consent Doesn't Work (Was: Re: why do we need change?)

[Alex Perez]

Nicola Pero wrote:
> > Yes, and frankly this is a perfect opportunity to state that rule by 
> > unanimous or even near-unanimous consent is simply not a viable nor 
> > sustainable. People disagree. One cannot make everyone happy, nor should 
> > they try to in all instances. Currently, I feel the GNUstep project is 
> > trying to do so in all instances, with disastrous results.
> >
> > At some point, it is sometimes necessary to simply *accept* the fact 
> > that certain people will be unhappy with certain decisions, which they 
> > may view to be controversial (but which many other, perhaps even the 
> > majority in many cases, may not).
> >
> > Right now, this project isn't going anywhere, and while I do not contest 
> >   the technical abilities of the leader, I do contest the 
> > lets-make-everybody-happy-and-if-we-cant-do-that-then-forget-about-it 
> > attitude which seems to be the norm instead of the exception. The 
> > project needs a stronger leader. Someone willing to make some tough 
> > decisions. The project's long-term health will be better as a result.
> >     
>
> I don't agree.  Some of your sentences are ... hinting to some sort of
> fascist leadership of the project, with which I strongly disagree.
>
> We need the leaders / core developers / people on top to listen *more* to
> the GNUstep community (users, developers, etc), not less! ;-)
>   
Listening to the people can happen in tandem with orchestration of the
effort as a whole. Doing one does not prevent the other from also
happening, nor am I advocating for a strong dicatorial style. That being
said, we need more leadership than we have. We're currently using what
essentially amounts to a pure-democracy system (in the original Greek
city-state style) and that's not working.
> Also, "tough decisions" that are unpopular are generally difficult to
> implement.  They are almost impossible to implement in a free software
> project where there is no way to force people to do anything against their
> will. :-)
>   
Something can be unpopular with a minority and still need to be
implemented. Just because someone bitches on one of the lists here and
says they dont want something to be done should *not* be grounds for not
doing it. That's all I am asserting.
> Decisions must be popular and supported and backed up by the various
> stake-holders (developers, users, etc) ... else no matter how good they 
> are, they will not be effective! :-)
>   
I agree. Once again, however, they don't need to be backed a
hyper-majority. Getting hypermajority backing is often impossible and is
usually a huge waste of time. Consensus decision-making does not scale.

> So leaders should rather be able to listen to the community and be able to
> organize and lead the vision and the strategy that the community
> elaborates ... everyone should feel part of that decision process, and so
> be empowered and feel that they support the decisions that they have
> contributes to shape.  Obviously there is a lot more to it, but the main
> point I wanted to make is ... for a leader, taking "tough decisions" is
> very easy, but very ... pointless! ;-)
>   
Hardly. I'm not advocating that anything that has little popular support
be done, only that we not rule by a hyper-majority or consensus, because
it bogs the project down in discussion ad infinitum.

> We want the exact contrary of "tough decisions" from top that make people 
> unhappy.
>   
I'm not I follow you...To make people HAPPY? or UNHAPPY? Please explain.
> We want a collective vision that we collectively shape and own and that we
> all support and contribute to implement. :-)
>   
Everyone is welcome to help shape vision, but you are operating under
the fallacious assumption that means we should never go anywhere if
there's permanent disagreement on an issue.
> I'm sure a great flame-fest will follow, please excuse me if I'll drop out
> of this thread at this point. ;-)
>   
Getting your word in and then stating that you won't respond to
subsequent responses should be a huge warning sign that you do not
actually desire the governing style which you advocated no more than a
few paragraphs above.
> Thanks
>
>
>
> PS: It's an interesting pattern of social behaviour that the "fascist"  
> proposals (strong carismatic leader that ignores the ideas of everyone
> else and decides the fate of everything according to his own caprice) most
> of the times come from the people that have more difficulty in interacting
> with the rest of the group.
>   
I was not stating in any way that the leader should ignore anything.
This is an assumption on your part, and it is a fallacious one at that.
> Maybe they are unhappy about democracy and open discussions because they
> can't cope with it.  They start dreaming of a different situation where
> their inability at listening to other opinions and interacting with other
> people suddenly becomes a unique virtue that makes them different and
> better than anyone else ...
>   
Open discussions should always be encouraged. What is not acceptable is
continual postponement of decision-making because consensus cannot be
reached. That sacrifices the project at the hands of the few (almost
always a minority) of people who happen to disagree with a given proposal.
> ... my assumption is obviously that anyone proposing a fascist leader is
> thinking of being the leader himself (or strongly linked to the leader),
> else he'd be a total idiot (which is, obviously, always a possibility).
>   
I have no desire to be the leader, but once again you assume a
strong-leader = fascist, which is not at all the case by default. There
is a huge gradient of power-sharing arrangements, and having worked for
both municipal and county governments, I am familiar with several
different styles of smaller-scale government. None of them were fascist.
Please, can the rhetoric.