> Adrian: MetaCard definitely don't want to give > everyone a MetaCard licence and in fact they once > suggested a two-level system - I haven't heard > anything against this system. > > Alain: Partners and/or associates get a full-licence > while mere participants don't, I suppose. Adrian: Only partners would get a full-licence, I don't envision having any checking mechanism for people becoming associates - they'd just subscribe to the mailing list. Partners would require approval from the current partners before they could "transcend" to being partners. > Alain: This is quite difficult to answer because we do > not have a hierarchy of well-established roles. I > guess you could say that it is totally egalitarian so > far. It may even remain that way. I am really not > sure. Adrian: This hierarchy needs to be properly established, even if it is completely flat, we need to decide that. We've spent a lot of time talking and yet we just keep returning to the same questions without finding answers. > Adrian: I would like to see majority votes as > consensus certainly isn't working. > > Alain: I don't agree. We simply did not have the means > of ascertaining the opinion of our current > participants. Adrian: By the nature of the internet I don't think we will ever have the means to determine wether or not we have complete consensus. We can determine that a majority or 2/3 or 5/6 agree, but not everyone. We need to allow for that reality. > Alain: That is what voting should be used for. Voting > could help us establish what the consensus is at any > given time. A polling mechanism instead of a binding > ruling. Adrian: Yes, in any system we need to get a voting/polling system set up. But as I said above, we won't be able to get everyone to use that system, some people will still "lurk". > Alain: Brings up the issue that some key members may > not always be around when someone decides to put > something to a vote. How long should the voting period > be to reasonably accomodate everyone? Besides, vote or > no vote, consensus or not, issues that we "resolve" > now will undoubtedly re-surface later on when more > people join in. Adrian: This is a big advantage of having a "dictator" who has the final say - when topics arise after being settled once before, the "dictator" can simply say that it has recently been discussed and that no change will be made. However, I would like to avoid a "dictator" as, like Alain, I would like to branch into new ways of collaborating and share power among members. Besides this is the way many companies are heading these days. > Alain: There are all kinds of problems with > majority-rule that I will not delve into here because > we have already discussed them several times in the > past. But, if it really is the only PRACTICAL approach > to group decision-making, then I will reluctantly give > up my fool's-dream of consensus-building. Adrian: Never give up on your dream, I think it is a dream that is shared by much of the group, but we just need to find the way to implement it so that it stands up to reality and the extra stresses our type of collaboration places on it. > Alain: What's the difference between a partner and an > associate? What distinguishes partners and associates > from the third group? How does one become part of the > inner-circle? Can this status be revoked by the group > if the group realizes later that it has made a > mistake? What if a minority sub-group of > partners/associates are dead-set against the promotion > of a participant to the inner-circle? Who sets the > voting agenda? (e.g. the 'what' and the 'when' of > voting) Adrian: The difference between a partner and associate is mainly a legal one with liability, Eric explained the details of this liability in a post yesterday I believe. Basically, it is a way to decide who gets a full MetaCard licence and who doesn't and preventing people from joining just to get a MetaCard licence - they'd have to do some work and earn it first or the partners wouldn't vote for them to become a partner. So, partners are a superset of associates - all partners are associates as well - and they first must be associates before becoming a partner. To go from being an associate to a partner, they must request to become a partner, or be nominated I guess, and then the current partners must vote on it and get at least x% of votes positives - with x still undecided. People can become associates simply by joining the "main" mailing list - this ensures that they are kept reasonably up to date with goings on. Everyone else, is "the public" the may submit code etc, but are generally not assumed to know what is going on. > Alain: I am sorry about being such a pain in the ass > about this. I suppose we could settle for voting and > forking as our decision-making schemes. But, given > that my research area is Communication & > Collaboration, I would personally be a little bit > disappointed if this turns out to be the outcome. I > will get over it, no doubt, and/or I will actualize my > vision of emergent collaboration in some other > context. Adrian: You are certainly not being a pain in the ass, I too would like to see a ground-breaking system of management, but reality keeps kicking in and I look at how little we have achieve in a collaborative sense in such a long time. This project has effectively killed off the UFP and that's a large price to pay, I would like to see this project make some strong advancements which will bring the UFP back to life as well as make OpenCard become a buzz-word on the lips of all xTalk developers. We need to get moving. Adrian Sutton ************************************************************** Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 3714 4649 It usually takes more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu speech. -- Mark Twain. **************************************************************
