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 # The Systemic Laws of Organisations.
  14
  15 The Systemic Laws are explained below.
  16
  17 ## Everyone belongs
  18
  19 Every contributor and their contributions and achievements are recognised.
  20 This further encourages people to contribute; they feel welcome, and their
  21 efforts valued.
  22
  23 ## Reality is acknowledged and accepted
  24
  25 Denial of reality is the quickest way to kill the effectiveness of an
  26 organisation.  Acceptance and acknowledgement of the facts, without
  27 judgement, subsequently allows analysis to take place so that corrections
  28 can be applied.
  29
  30 To reach a goal, it is necessary to have four things: (1) a model (2)
  31 observations of reality (3) a comparative analysis system and
  32 (4) a corrective feedback loop.  Whilst (1, 3 and 4) are sufficiently
  33 obvious and objective that nobody really thinks much of them, when
  34 things get hard it is often challenging for people to objectively face
  35 reality, particularly if other Systemic Laws are being violated as well.
  36
  37 ## Everyone is respected and honoured, past and present
  38
  39 When someone leaves a project, particularly under less than ideal circumstances,
  40 it is still vitally important to value and respect both them *and* their
  41 contributions.
  42
  43 ## Role, Seniority and Expertise are all respected.
  44
  45 This can be very challenging, particularly when someone with more expertise
  46 meets someone whose length of service is greater.
  47
  48 ## We accept the responsibility of our position
  49
  50 If we choose a position of responsibility, we must actually acknowledge and
  51 accept the responsibility of that role!  People will be relying on us.
  52
  53 ## Everyone is rewarded equitably for their contributions
  54
  55 In a "Libre" context this is often extremely hard to do, as the normal
  56 rules of profit-maximising business (do not provide goods or services
  57 until payment has been received) do not apply: our "product" - the
  58 source code - is made available at zero monetary cost.  So it is down
  59 to us to ensure that part of our time is spent making sure that everyone
  60 *is* actually rewarded, whether through contracts, sponsorship, donations,
  61 crowd-funding and profit-sharing in the same, and so on.
  62
  63 ## Everyone is responsible and accountable (for the "good" *and* the "bad")
  64
  65 When we do something well, it is vital that we (alone) own and hold the
  66 credit for that achievement (nobody else takes the credit; we *accept*
  67 the credit).  When we screw up, it is just as equally vital that we take
  68 responsibility for cleaning up our mess, and that nobody else is blamed
  69 *or think they own it*, or tries to take the task away from us!
  70
  71 In this way, two vitally important things happen.  Firstly: we can rely
  72 on each other, as we trust that the tasks that others chose will be
  73 completed (even if they mess up a few times).  Secondly: in our chosen
  74 opportunity to grow and learn, we know and trust that nobody will take
  75 that away from us, and, further, that our achievements and the credit
  76 will be ours.
  77
  78 # Decision-making and new contributors
  79
  80 This section has two aspects.  The first is that everything but unanimous
  81 decision-making is disempowering and de-motivating (harmful).  Majority
  82 rule (mob rule) is easily demonstrated to be so: anyone *not* in the
  83 majority quickly gives up in resignation, even if their contribution is
  84 critically important (and in the political arena, "Minority Representative
  85 Groups" form as a direct result).  Unanimous decision-making requires
  86 that the issue be discussed until it is fully understood by *all* members
  87 (or members recognise that they do not or cannot understand the issue,
  88 and abstain).
  89
  90 The introduction of new contributors really requires specially spelling
  91 out.  The last thing that is needed is for a new contributor to introduce
  92 changes that drain the time and resources of prior contributors to the
  93 point where the project fails.  Unanimous decision-making ensures that
  94 all members (who inherently have a longer term of service to the project
  95 than any new member) have the right to veto proposals that disrupt the
  96 project.  In a "mob rule" scenario, there is the potential for enough
  97 new members to join simultaneously that they could easily completely
  98 take over the project.  Unanimous decision making prevents this scenario.
  99
 100 It is also worthwhile noting on the subject of unanimous decision-making:
 101 its effectiveness decreases as the number of contributors goes significantly
 102 above around eight.  If that occurs, delegate!  Form sub-projects, agree
 103 roles and responsibilities, and go for it.  Divide and conquer.