X-Git-Url: https://git.libre-soc.org/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=charter%2Fdiscussion.mdwn;h=b7490b05c9aa7951ff7db343c3269d4ba243ebb7;hb=c526d7e8e51f5ae20fecfa755a8fa85344fac302;hp=b437e02c82b7a0fff70adcf0fdde673a1b8b9c2e;hpb=891c074f8cbd5a7742ff9a0dcd5d392b56055dad;p=libreriscv.git

diff --git a/charter/discussion.mdwn b/charter/discussion.mdwn
index b437e02c8..b7490b05c 100644
--- a/charter/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/charter/discussion.mdwn
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ 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 safe and welcoming?
+project is *actually* safe and welcoming?
 
 # The Systemic Laws of Organisations.
 
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ 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
+obvious and objective that nobody really thinks much about 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.
 
@@ -66,7 +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
-*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
@@ -78,12 +78,14 @@ 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.  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).
+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