Re: Why Unanimous Consent Doesn't Work (Was: Re: why do we need change?)

[Nicola Pero]

> Yes, and frankly this is a perfect opportunity to state that rule by 
> unanimous or even near-unanimous consent is simply not a viable nor 
> sustainable. People disagree. One cannot make everyone happy, nor should 
> they try to in all instances. Currently, I feel the GNUstep project is 
> trying to do so in all instances, with disastrous results.
> 
> At some point, it is sometimes necessary to simply *accept* the fact 
> that certain people will be unhappy with certain decisions, which they 
> may view to be controversial (but which many other, perhaps even the 
> majority in many cases, may not).
> 
> Right now, this project isn't going anywhere, and while I do not contest 
>   the technical abilities of the leader, I do contest the 
> lets-make-everybody-happy-and-if-we-cant-do-that-then-forget-about-it 
> attitude which seems to be the norm instead of the exception. The 
> project needs a stronger leader. Someone willing to make some tough 
> decisions. The project's long-term health will be better as a result.

I don't agree.  Some of your sentences are ... hinting to some sort of
fascist leadership of the project, with which I strongly disagree.

We need the leaders / core developers / people on top to listen *more* to
the GNUstep community (users, developers, etc), not less! ;-)

Also, "tough decisions" that are unpopular are generally difficult to
implement.  They are almost impossible to implement in a free software
project where there is no way to force people to do anything against their
will. :-)

Decisions must be popular and supported and backed up by the various
stake-holders (developers, users, etc) ... else no matter how good they 
are, they will not be effective! :-)

So leaders should rather be able to listen to the community and be able to
organize and lead the vision and the strategy that the community
elaborates ... everyone should feel part of that decision process, and so
be empowered and feel that they support the decisions that they have
contributes to shape.  Obviously there is a lot more to it, but the main
point I wanted to make is ... for a leader, taking "tough decisions" is
very easy, but very ... pointless! ;-)

We want the exact contrary of "tough decisions" from top that make people 
unhappy.

We want a collective vision that we collectively shape and own and that we
all support and contribute to implement. :-)

I'm sure a great flame-fest will follow, please excuse me if I'll drop out
of this thread at this point. ;-)

Thanks



PS: It's an interesting pattern of social behaviour that the "fascist"  
proposals (strong carismatic leader that ignores the ideas of everyone
else and decides the fate of everything according to his own caprice) most
of the times come from the people that have more difficulty in interacting
with the rest of the group.

Maybe they are unhappy about democracy and open discussions because they
can't cope with it.  They start dreaming of a different situation where
their inability at listening to other opinions and interacting with other
people suddenly becomes a unique virtue that makes them different and
better than anyone else ...

... my assumption is obviously that anyone proposing a fascist leader is
thinking of being the leader himself (or strongly linked to the leader),
else he'd be a total idiot (which is, obviously, always a possibility).