-# Discussion and commentary on Libre-RISCV Member Agreement
+# Discussion and commentary on Libre-SOC Member Agreement
+
+The Charter is explained further here: please feel free to edit
+and add comments at the end sections
# The Code of Honour
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?
+
+Codes of "Conduct" are based on the assumption of guilt and a
+predisposition of participants to exclusionary, disruptive and
+unwelcoming behavior. It assumes - in advance and up front -
+that they are incapable of knowing the difference between right and
+wrong, and patronises them with a horrifically toxic - and by
+definition inadequate and incomplete - "proscribed list".
+
+A Code of *Honour* inherently empowers participants with the
+responsibility to know (or learn) and act upon the difference
+between right and wrong, good and bad. That alone says "we
+trust you, empower you, and require you, to act responsibly",
+for the benefit of all, including yourself, as part of this
+Organisation.
+
+Here we illustrate with the obligatory Dilbert cartoons the
+polar opposite of a reasonable Code.
+
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/7378df606cc701301d50001dd8b71c47" width="400" />
# The Systemic Laws of Organisations.
This further encourages people to contribute; they feel welcome, and their
efforts valued.
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/4fb42f906d5101301d7a001dd8b71c47" width="400" />
+
## Reality is acknowledged and accepted
Denial of reality is the quickest way to kill the effectiveness of an
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.
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/6ab84f80e4d101382714005056a9545d" width="400" />
+
## Everyone is respected and honoured, past and present
-When someone leaves a project, particularly under less than ideal circumstances,
+When someone leaves a project, even under less than ideal circumstances,
it is still vitally important to value and respect both them *and* their
-contributions.
+contributions.
+Even when things are difficult, a person can teach you valuable lessons,
+by example of how you *don't* want things to continue in the future.
+
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/0548b7909ee3012f2fe600163e41dd5b" width="400" />
## 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.
+
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/d06a1270a06a012f2fe600163e41dd5b" width="400" />
## We accept the responsibility of our position
If we choose a position of responsibility, we must actually acknowledge and
accept the responsibility of that role! People will be relying on us.
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/9d7569a09f8f012f2fe600163e41dd5b" width="400" />
+
+<!-- img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/de754040f11401382b97005056a9545d" width="400" -->
+
## Everyone is rewarded equitably for their contributions
In a "Libre" context this is often extremely hard to do, as the normal
*is* actually rewarded, whether through contracts, sponsorship, donations,
crowd-funding and profit-sharing in the same, and so on.
-## Everyone is responsible and accountable (for the "good" *and* the "bad")
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/e1ee2ec09e16012f2fe500163e41dd5b" width="400" />
+
+## Everyone is responsible, credited, and accountable (for the "good" *and* the "bad")
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
that away from us, and, further, that our achievements and the credit
will be ours.
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/a19b8990f08a01382b5a005056a9545d" width="400" />
+
+# 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).
+
+<img src="https://assets.amuniversal.com/b3e4ff709dfc012f2fe500163e41dd5b" width="400" />
+
+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.
+
+# Questions / Comments
+
+Add here.
projects / libreriscv.git / blobdiff