Le 11/09/2012 22:54, Justin Lebar a écrit : >> If we all, volunteers and paid employees, have the same informations >> about the world and agree on the Manifesto, I don't see a reason for >> having our priorities not aligned. Please tell me if you see such a reason. > There's another criterion missing here: If we all have the same > information about the world, agree on the Manifesto, and think exactly > the same way in all other respects, then yes, we'd reach the same > conclusions. > > But obviously different people don't think the same way in all > respects, so we sometimes don't reach the same conclusions, even given > the same values and evidence. That's why I talked about aligning priorities and not about reaching conclusions. Several people with the same informations will disagree on the conclusions. It happens all the time in standard bodies, on Bugzilla. At any level, for pretty much everything. But disagreeing while debating doesn't prevent from agreeing on the same priorities. And as with Bugzilla and standards, it doesn't prevent from moving forward.
> If your argument were true, then either the volunteers working on > SeaMonkey (and, for that matter, Thunderbird) don't share MoCo's > values or they are lacking some key piece(s) of information that MoCo > has. > > Do you think that's true? If so, what do you think the case is -- do > you think that SM/TB contributors by and large have different values > than MoCo, do you think that they're lacking some information that > MoCo has, or is it some combination of both? > > I'd say neither is the case: You and I can share a common manifesto > and both have the same evidence about the world and yet we can have > different priorities. > > Examples of this in the real world abound -- consider, for example, > the myriad organizations dedicated to feeding the world's poor. These > organizations don't always agree on what's the best way to accomplish > their shared goal, despite all having roughly the same information > about the state of the world. There is a missing part in your reasoning. People may have their own agenda. Some people may just think Thunderbird is a great piece a software they wish to improve. If that's the case, then, their incentive to work on Thunderbird falls outside of the Manifesto scope. I realize that's an important part I missed in my original post: volunteering to work on a Mozilla product doesn't imply working in the direction of the Manifesto. It actually doesn't even imply agreeing with the Manifesto. But I am not talking about this part of the community. If some people don't care or even disagree with the Manifesto, they clearly have no interest in helping shaping Mozilla priorities. >> If we, volunteers >> and paid employees, all take part in deciding Mozilla priorities, we >> will have our priorities aligned as a consequence of the decision process. > Why should this be true? Suppose I took part in a decision-making > process which produced a result I didn't agree with. Why would my > priorities then be aligned with the result of the process? Would you work on what has been agreed on? If yes, then, your priorities de-facto align with the one of the group regardless of your disagreement. Agreeing on priorities as a group doesn't necessarily mean that every single individual agrees with every single decision made by the group. If no, if your disagreement is profound enough to stop contributing in the same direction than others, then there is a disagreement in the values and it's worth investigating further. Maybe some others agree with you and it's time to create an alternative group to Mozilla with your reading of the values. If you're alone, it may be time for you to move on. Just to be clear, I'm not saying who would be right or wrong in the reading of the values, but just that disagreement in values is a big enough reason to justify a split. > I think the fact that Mozilla cultivates groups with heterogeneous > priorities is a great strength. For example, Firefox was created by > volunteers who didn't agree with MoCo's direction at the time. I'm missing that part of history. Can you expand on that? At the time, were both volunteers and MoCo sharing the same values? Communicating enough about making decisions? Can you describe how priorities were different at the time? David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
