charter/discussion.mdwn

   1 # Discussion and commentary on Libre-RISCV Member Agreement
   2
   3 # The Code of Honour
   4
   5 It's called a Code of "Honour", not a Code of "Conduct", for a reason.
   6 A Code of "Honour" is a positive and clear statement.  Everyone knows
   7 the difference between "good" and "bad".  Codes of "Conduct" on the
   8 other hand have nothing to do with honour, and by the time the reader
   9 has finished going through a horrific list of "proscribed behaviours",
  10 what are the chances that they will actually genuinely feel that the
  11 project is *actually* safe and welcoming?
  12
  13 Codes of "Conduct" are based on the assumption of guilt and a
  14 predisposition of participants to exclusionary, disruptive and
  15 unwelcoming behavior.  It assumes - in advance and up front -
  16 that they are incapable of knowing the difference between right and
  17 wrong, and patronises them with a horrifically toxic - and by
  18 definition inadequate and incomplete - "proscribed list".
  19
  20 A Code of *Honour* inherently empowers participants with the
  21 responsibility to know (or learn) and act upon the difference
  22 between right and wrong, good and bad.  That alone says "we
  23 trust you, empower you, and require you, to act responsibly",
  24 for the benefit of all, including yourself, as part of this
  25 Organisation.
  26
  27 # The Systemic Laws of Organisations.
  28
  29 The Systemic Laws are explained below.
  30
  31 ## Everyone belongs
  32
  33 Every contributor and their contributions and achievements are recognised.
  34 This further encourages people to contribute; they feel welcome, and their
  35 efforts valued.
  36
  37 ## Reality is acknowledged and accepted
  38
  39 Denial of reality is the quickest way to kill the effectiveness of an
  40 organisation.  Acceptance and acknowledgement of the facts, without
  41 judgement, subsequently allows analysis to take place so that corrections
  42 can be applied.
  43
  44 To reach a goal, it is necessary to have four things: (1) a model (2)
  45 observations of reality (3) a comparative analysis system and
  46 (4) a corrective feedback loop.  Whilst (1, 3 and 4) are sufficiently
  47 obvious and objective that nobody really thinks much about them, when
  48 things get hard it is often challenging for people to objectively face
  49 reality, particularly if other Systemic Laws are being violated as well.
  50
  51 <img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/6ab84f80e4d101382714005056a9545d" width="400" />
  52
  53 ## Everyone is respected and honoured, past and present
  54
  55 When someone leaves a project, particularly under less than ideal circumstances,
  56 it is still vitally important to value and respect both them *and* their
  57 contributions.
  58
  59 ## Role, Seniority and Expertise are all respected.
  60
  61 This can be very challenging, particularly when someone with more expertise
  62 meets someone whose length of service is greater.
  63
  64 ## We accept the responsibility of our position
  65
  66 If we choose a position of responsibility, we must actually acknowledge and
  67 accept the responsibility of that role!  People will be relying on us.
  68
  69 ## Everyone is rewarded equitably for their contributions
  70
  71 In a "Libre" context this is often extremely hard to do, as the normal
  72 rules of profit-maximising business (do not provide goods or services
  73 until payment has been received) do not apply: our "product" - the
  74 source code - is made available at zero monetary cost.  So it is down
  75 to us to ensure that part of our time is spent making sure that everyone
  76 *is* actually rewarded, whether through contracts, sponsorship, donations,
  77 crowd-funding and profit-sharing in the same, and so on.
  78
  79 ## Everyone is responsible, credited, and accountable (for the "good" *and* the "bad")
  80
  81 When we do something well, it is vital that we (alone) own and hold the
  82 credit for that achievement (nobody else takes the credit; we *accept*
  83 the credit).  When we screw up, it is just as equally vital that we take
  84 responsibility for cleaning up our mess, and that nobody else is blamed
  85 *or think they own it*, or tries to take the task away from us!
  86
  87 In this way, two vitally important things happen.  Firstly: we can rely
  88 on each other, as we trust that the tasks that others chose will be
  89 completed (even if they mess up a few times).  Secondly: in our chosen
  90 opportunity to grow and learn, we know and trust that nobody will take
  91 that away from us, and, further, that our achievements and the credit
  92 will be ours.
  93
  94 <img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/a19b8990f08a01382b5a005056a9545d" width="400" />
  95
  96 # Decision-making and new contributors
  97
  98 This section has two aspects.  The first is that everything but unanimous
  99 decision-making is disempowering and de-motivating (harmful).  Majority
 100 rule (mob rule) is easily demonstrated to be so: anyone *not* in the
 101 majority quickly gives up in resignation, even if their contribution is
 102 critically important (and in the political arena, "Minority Representative
 103 Groups" form as a direct result).  Unanimous decision-making requires
 104 that the issue be discussed until it is fully understood by *all* members
 105 (or members recognise that they do not or cannot understand the issue,
 106 and abstain).
 107
 108 The introduction of new contributors really requires specially spelling
 109 out.  The last thing that is needed is for a new contributor to introduce
 110 changes that drain the time and resources of prior contributors to the
 111 point where the project fails.  Unanimous decision-making ensures that
 112 all members (who inherently have a longer term of service to the project
 113 than any new member) have the right to veto proposals that disrupt the
 114 project.  In a "mob rule" scenario, there is the potential for enough
 115 new members to join simultaneously that they could easily completely
 116 take over the project.  Unanimous decision making prevents this scenario.
 117
 118 It is also worthwhile noting on the subject of unanimous decision-making:
 119 its effectiveness decreases as the number of contributors goes significantly
 120 above around eight.  If that occurs, delegate!  Form sub-projects, agree
 121 roles and responsibilities, and go for it.  Divide and conquer.