sex 21 ago 2026 às 14:25:33 (1787333133), [email protected] enviou: > > > > 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. >
The thing is we don't have an objetive way of saying if any particular GCD is good or bad. If we had, the GCD process would be uneeded and we would rather be working on implementing an algorithm that would parse proposals and decide on our behalf. However, such god machine is the antithesis of collective decision making. To me, the risk we are at is not of any particular GCD passing or failing (we can always revisit the consensus when needed), but that we become vindictive and distrustful towards one another and towards the GCD process itself. The risk that our willingness to colaborate is lost to in-fighting and that we become unable to take any decision collectively.
