clarify

[libreriscv.git] / charter / discussion.mdwn

diff --git a/charter/discussion.mdwn b/charter/discussion.mdwn
index 1521c6c1f7e1805da2ccdbf5110706b1171ce83b..af0864b20b710368a04c0f78503d5eadb1eaeb64 100644 (file)
--- a/charter/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/charter/discussion.mdwn
@@ -3,6 +3,12 @@
 # The Code of Honour
 
 It's called a Code of "Honour", not a Code of "Conduct", for a reason.
 # The Code of Honour
 
 It's called a Code of "Honour", not a Code of "Conduct", for a reason.

+A Code of "Honour" is a positive and clear statement.  Everyone knows
+the difference between "good" and "bad".  Codes of "Conduct" on the
+other hand have nothing to do with honour, and by the time the reader
+has finished going through a horrific list of "proscribed behaviours",
+what are the chances that they will actually genuinely feel that the
+project is *actually* safe and welcoming?

 
 # The Systemic Laws of Organisations.
 
 
 # The Systemic Laws of Organisations.
 


@@ -14,16 +20,30 @@ Every contributor and their contributions and achievements are recognised.
 This further encourages people to contribute; they feel welcome, and their
 efforts valued.
 
 This further encourages people to contribute; they feel welcome, and their
 efforts valued.
 

+## Reality is acknowledged and accepted
+
+Denial of reality is the quickest way to kill the effectiveness of an
+organisation.  Acceptance and acknowledgement of the facts, without
+judgement, subsequently allows analysis to take place so that corrections
+can be applied.
+
+To reach a goal, it is necessary to have four things: (1) a model (2)
+observations of reality (3) a comparative analysis system and
+(4) a corrective feedback loop.  Whilst (1, 3 and 4) are sufficiently
+obvious and objective that nobody really thinks much of them, when
+things get hard it is often challenging for people to objectively face
+reality, particularly if other Systemic Laws are being violated as well.
+

 ## Everyone is respected and honoured, past and present
 
 When someone leaves a project, particularly under less than ideal circumstances,
 it is still vitally important to value and respect both them *and* their
 ## Everyone is respected and honoured, past and present
 
 When someone leaves a project, particularly under less than ideal circumstances,
 it is still vitally important to value and respect both them *and* their

-contributions.  
+contributions.

 
 ## Role, Seniority and Expertise are all respected.
 
 This can be very challenging, particularly when someone with more expertise
 
 ## Role, Seniority and Expertise are all respected.
 
 This can be very challenging, particularly when someone with more expertise

-meets someone whose length of service is greater.  
+meets someone whose length of service is greater.

 
 ## We accept the responsibility of our position
 
 
 ## We accept the responsibility of our position
 


@@ -46,7 +66,7 @@ When we do something well, it is vital that we (alone) own and hold the
 credit for that achievement (nobody else takes the credit; we *accept*
 the credit).  When we screw up, it is just as equally vital that we take
 responsibility for cleaning up our mess, and that nobody else is blamed
 credit for that achievement (nobody else takes the credit; we *accept*
 the credit).  When we screw up, it is just as equally vital that we take
 responsibility for cleaning up our mess, and that nobody else is blamed

-*or think they own it*, or tries to take it the task away from us!
+*or think they own it*, or tries to take the task away from us!

 
 In this way, two vitally important things happen.  Firstly: we can rely
 on each other, as we trust that the tasks that others chose will be
 
 In this way, two vitally important things happen.  Firstly: we can rely
 on each other, as we trust that the tasks that others chose will be


@@ -55,3 +75,29 @@ opportunity to grow and learn, we know and trust that nobody will take
 that away from us, and, further, that our achievements and the credit
 will be ours.
 
 that away from us, and, further, that our achievements and the credit
 will be ours.
 

+# Decision-making and new contributors
+
+This section has two aspects.  The first is that everything but unanimous
+decision-making is disempowering and de-motivating (harmful).  Majority
+rule (mob rule) is easily demonstrated to be so: anyone *not* in the
+majority quickly gives up in resignation, even if their contribution is
+critically important (and in the political arena, "Minority Representative
+Groups" form as a direct result).  Unanimous decision-making requires
+that the issue be discussed until it is fully understood by *all* members
+(or members recognise that they do not or cannot understand the issue,
+and abstain).
+
+The introduction of new contributors really requires specially spelling
+out.  The last thing that is needed is for a new contributor to introduce
+changes that drain the time and resources of prior contributors to the
+point where the project fails.  Unanimous decision-making ensures that
+all members (who inherently have a longer term of service to the project
+than any new member) have the right to veto proposals that disrupt the
+project.  In a "mob rule" scenario, there is the potential for enough
+new members to join simultaneously that they could easily completely
+take over the project.  Unanimous decision making prevents this scenario.
+
+It is also worthwhile noting on the subject of unanimous decision-making:
+its effectiveness decreases as the number of contributors goes significantly
+above around eight.  If that occurs, delegate!  Form sub-projects, agree
+roles and responsibilities, and go for it.  Divide and conquer.