X-Git-Url: https://git.libre-soc.org/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=charter%2Fdiscussion.mdwn;h=e797a21a32a7295a07d3a67b141bdb6eb6babab3;hb=c5af83af663bfc23eacdea3958efa84b658f3357;hp=e9b480bc19a310be7d55dae2e38b1553dfbd1bf1;hpb=55dd80741d038b4c55e7e62b10b4094187163c88;p=libreriscv.git diff --git a/charter/discussion.mdwn b/charter/discussion.mdwn index e9b480bc1..e797a21a3 100644 --- a/charter/discussion.mdwn +++ b/charter/discussion.mdwn @@ -1,4 +1,7 @@ -# 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 @@ -10,6 +13,25 @@ has finished going through a horrific list of "proscribed behaviours", what are the chances that they will actually genuinely feel that the 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. + + + # The Systemic Laws of Organisations. The Systemic Laws are explained below. @@ -20,6 +42,8 @@ Every contributor and their contributions and achievements are recognised. This further encourages people to contribute; they feel welcome, and their efforts valued. + + ## Reality is acknowledged and accepted Denial of reality is the quickest way to kill the effectiveness of an @@ -30,26 +54,36 @@ 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. + + ## 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. +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. + + ## 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. + + ## 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. + + ## Everyone is rewarded equitably for their contributions In a "Libre" context this is often extremely hard to do, as the normal @@ -60,7 +94,9 @@ to us to ensure that part of our time is spent making sure that everyone *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") + + +## 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* @@ -75,15 +111,21 @@ opportunity to grow and learn, we know and trust that nobody will take that away from us, and, further, that our achievements and the credit 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 @@ -99,3 +141,7 @@ 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.