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.
  23
  24 # The Systemic Laws of Organisations.
  25
  26 The Systemic Laws are explained below.
  27
  28 ## Everyone belongs
  29
  30 Every contributor and their contributions and achievements are recognised.
  31 This further encourages people to contribute; they feel welcome, and their
  32 efforts valued.
  33
  34 ## Reality is acknowledged and accepted
  35
  36 Denial of reality is the quickest way to kill the effectiveness of an
  37 organisation.  Acceptance and acknowledgement of the facts, without
  38 judgement, subsequently allows analysis to take place so that corrections
  39 can be applied.
  40
  41 To reach a goal, it is necessary to have four things: (1) a model (2)
  42 observations of reality (3) a comparative analysis system and
  43 (4) a corrective feedback loop.  Whilst (1, 3 and 4) are sufficiently
  44 obvious and objective that nobody really thinks much about them, when
  45 things get hard it is often challenging for people to objectively face
  46 reality, particularly if other Systemic Laws are being violated as well.
  47
  48 ## Everyone is respected and honoured, past and present
  49
  50 When someone leaves a project, particularly under less than ideal circumstances,
  51 it is still vitally important to value and respect both them *and* their
  52 contributions.
  53
  54 ## Role, Seniority and Expertise are all respected.
  55
  56 This can be very challenging, particularly when someone with more expertise
  57 meets someone whose length of service is greater.
  58
  59 ## We accept the responsibility of our position
  60
  61 If we choose a position of responsibility, we must actually acknowledge and
  62 accept the responsibility of that role!  People will be relying on us.
  63
  64 ## Everyone is rewarded equitably for their contributions
  65
  66 In a "Libre" context this is often extremely hard to do, as the normal
  67 rules of profit-maximising business (do not provide goods or services
  68 until payment has been received) do not apply: our "product" - the
  69 source code - is made available at zero monetary cost.  So it is down
  70 to us to ensure that part of our time is spent making sure that everyone
  71 *is* actually rewarded, whether through contracts, sponsorship, donations,
  72 crowd-funding and profit-sharing in the same, and so on.
  73
  74 ## Everyone is responsible and accountable (for the "good" *and* the "bad")
  75
  76 When we do something well, it is vital that we (alone) own and hold the
  77 credit for that achievement (nobody else takes the credit; we *accept*
  78 the credit).  When we screw up, it is just as equally vital that we take
  79 responsibility for cleaning up our mess, and that nobody else is blamed
  80 *or think they own it*, or tries to take the task away from us!
  81
  82 In this way, two vitally important things happen.  Firstly: we can rely
  83 on each other, as we trust that the tasks that others chose will be
  84 completed (even if they mess up a few times).  Secondly: in our chosen
  85 opportunity to grow and learn, we know and trust that nobody will take
  86 that away from us, and, further, that our achievements and the credit
  87 will be ours.
  88
  89 # Decision-making and new contributors
  90
  91 This section has two aspects.  The first is that everything but unanimous
  92 decision-making is disempowering and de-motivating (harmful).  Majority
  93 rule (mob rule) is easily demonstrated to be so: anyone *not* in the
  94 majority quickly gives up in resignation, even if their contribution is
  95 critically important (and in the political arena, "Minority Representative
  96 Groups" form as a direct result).  Unanimous decision-making requires
  97 that the issue be discussed until it is fully understood by *all* members
  98 (or members recognise that they do not or cannot understand the issue,
  99 and abstain).
 100
 101 The introduction of new contributors really requires specially spelling
 102 out.  The last thing that is needed is for a new contributor to introduce
 103 changes that drain the time and resources of prior contributors to the
 104 point where the project fails.  Unanimous decision-making ensures that
 105 all members (who inherently have a longer term of service to the project
 106 than any new member) have the right to veto proposals that disrupt the
 107 project.  In a "mob rule" scenario, there is the potential for enough
 108 new members to join simultaneously that they could easily completely
 109 take over the project.  Unanimous decision making prevents this scenario.
 110
 111 It is also worthwhile noting on the subject of unanimous decision-making:
 112 its effectiveness decreases as the number of contributors goes significantly
 113 above around eight.  If that occurs, delegate!  Form sub-projects, agree
 114 roles and responsibilities, and go for it.  Divide and conquer.