On 2026-05-26, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Rutherther wrote: > It seems very strange that *people* are right but fail to come up with > stringent argumentation. So we have an implicit (informal) hierarchy > that I have to obey? Don't think I ever read such a passage in the > manual.
You keep bringing up informal hierarchy while simultaneously arguing for a wildly flexible interpretation of the actual formal process we have, while appealing to overturn the process to an authority body? There is some cognitive dissonance there. There was not quorum. It came *close* to the bare minimum. There was a disapproval, which, if they had just not said anything, it would be even further away from quorum. To be clear, I explicitly withheld my say when it came time, because the whole dialogue I observed did not make me want to engage. Right out of the gate, it felt more like someone trying to win a formal debate than a consensus building process. It felt considerably more combative in tone and language than most of the other GCDs (with one notable exception, which... failed to pass). The debate continues with this very thread, even though by the simple measure laid out in the formal process we have, the result is unambiguous. The fact that there is this much contention at this point should be clear that there is nothing even vaguely resembling consensus. I am sorry I did not have the mental and emotional space to be more involved... in the end, I did not feel comfortable with any of the explicit options available to me; I did not feel the right of disapproval, having not engaged; I did not feel comfortable accepting or supporting it. So I withheld my tiny fraction of quorum as an implicit action. I believe this is the only GCD where quorum was even close to problem, and that says something. Overall, I feel like several of the GCDs so far have lead to voluminous exchanges of highly verbose information and I simply do not usually have the time and energy to follow. That is a serious accessibility issue. Decision making by those that talk the most and loudest is not a process I will find any contentment in and is certainly not consensus. The asynchronous nature of online communications, while in some ways hugely beneficial to processes like this, makes this harder than if we were in a room together where ideally only one person would generally be speaking at a time and the conversation would not generally be continuing at all hours of the day across the globe. Waking up to an inbox full of walls of text after walls of text, followed by walls of text... is difficult to digest. And so I contribute to the problem! I do not know a solution, per se, but one thing that would really help me is rate limiting ourselves, both in frequency of posting and in quantity of any given post. Which... is hard. Because some issues are complicated and need a lot of discussion and just plain words to really sort out the important details. There is obviously room for improvement for teams and organizational structure, but for whatever reason, something about this particular proposal went awry. There is a valuable document produced out of this process (despite the result of the process remaining incomplete), a lot of discussion, which gives a starting point for further exploration of the subject, and possibly other angles to explore. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
