On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 6:47 PM André Batista <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > *** Personal preferences > > I also think that it could be good to formalize that personal, > arbitrary preferences are not acceptable reasons to block the > consensus. Neither are appeals to authority, secret meetings, > fears, insecurity and uncertainty. Saying a GCD is harmful or > doubtful comes with the duty of at least showing that those > harms and doubts are shared concerns/goals to the project.
Note that personal, arbitrary preferences, appeals to authority, secret meetings, fears, insecurity, and uncertainty were the reasons many if not most were voting in support of the prior GCD! The onus should be as least as much on those wishing to enshrine their particular proposal above all alternatives. What the process needs is a parliamentarian who can say, "author, you are right, the top half of your document is off-topic, let's edit that out" so that the discussion is not exhausted majoring in minors.
