Nemin <[email protected]> writes:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:29:05 +0200
Simon Tournier <[email protected]> wrote:
However, sadly it cannot be so simple. :-) The GCD deliberation
isn’t
the expression of some mood or feelings at the deliberation
time,
instead it’s the result of a deep thought about (1) “Can I live
with my
concerns and the flaws I identify” and (2) “Aside my personal
preferences, is the outcome of the GCD at hand a good direction
for the
project to move forward?”.
As an outside observer, I find it really odd that the GCD
process is set
up in a way that allows a single person to completely torpedo a
~2 month
process.
I understand and support the want to avoid "tyranny of the
majority",
but I think similarly there is also issues with granting an
unchecked
veto, even if there is some filtering in place of only
maintainers being
able to vote. [...]
I see the word "veto" in this message and others before it. The
consensus finding process does not know of a veto. The fact that
disagreement was leveraged as an effective veto is a severe
misunderstanding of the process and the responsibilities it puts
on participants. This is why I think that the process needs to be
updated to include safeguards against non-constructive
disagreement.
--
Ricardo
