On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 5:01 PM André Batista <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > qua 19 ago 2026 às 13:56:54 (1787158614), [email protected] enviou: > > 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. > > > > The way I see it, currently the onus is way heavier on proponents. > When someone proposes a GCD, they have to work on the proposal, > give their motivation, attend to comments and criticism, adapt to > demands and generaly build the consensus. > > If their motivation/proposal does not hold water, was not understood > or is not based on shared goals/concerns, it fails to gather enough > support. If it does gather support, we can safely conclude that it > was not personal or arbitrary, even if one personaly disagrees. > > OTOH, one can disapprove solely and even though we have a provision > saying that there should have been a constructive attempt on > consensus building, I'm under the impression that we have not been > holding the disapproval to the same standard of effort on consensus > building.
That is true for GCD 008. But GCD 007 nearly had the votes to pass and no one has ever explained a goal or objective or reason for its existence. The project is at greater risk from bad poorly designed GCDs passing than good GCDs failing. The purpose of the GCD process is to avoid and prevent conflict. > > 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. > > Care to explain? The way I read this, it would be a moderator with > authority over the rest of the community and a corruption of our > consensus process. Brazil had a similar figure during its "imperial" > phase and I can safely say this was only a way of giving the > autocratic regime some democratic makeup. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderating_power_(Empire_of_Brazil) In the US we have a Senate parliamentarian whose role is entirely advisory (to the Vice President or Senate) yet the advice is nearly universally followed. I had expected the Sponsor would serve this role but we have seen a case where the Sponsor had not even read the document. Several GCDs have treated the process as a loophole around the project's code of conduct and topicality requirements. I see no harm in extending the CoC to GCDs and requiring documents and discussions to remain on topic, with enforcement.
