On 3/29/2019 2:35 PM, Natanael Copa wrote:
>> - Do the right thing over doing the written thing
> What is "the right thing"? Who decides what the right thing is?
> I am afraid that it may be (ab)used for things like: "The right thing
> to do is to punish someone who offended me when nobody else does, even
> if the written rules says I shouldn't"
The axioms involved are as such:
- There is always a correct course of action, based on the project goals.
- It is possible to identify this course of action.
- This course of action could, in theory, require breaking an existing
rule or policy.
Under the latter conditions, the idea here is to allow people to do said
correct thing without (necessarily) waiting on consensus.
> Who decides what the right thing is?
The intent is for the right thing to be decided by consensus - a sort of
If someone abuses this by claiming to know what the right thing is,
while not actually following consensus, that would be qualified as abuse
of power and punishable.
I do see the concerns with the wording, though, and that was my main
criticism of this point (as drafted by Drew).
However, I could not come up with a better wording, so I left it in.
The intention (slightly longer) is documented above, so let's discuss
the intent, and if anyone comes up with better wording, it can be
> I also wonder if would make sense to include something in the lines:
> "Build a sustainable community that does not depend on any individual or
> any single company or organization."
> Even if we haven't really written it down anywhere, that has been a
> goal since the very beginning.
How about the following?:
> - - To maintain a friendly and productive community within.
> + - To build a friendly, productive and sustainable community that
does not depend on any singular entity.
Received on Fri Mar 29 2019 - 15:18:26 UTC