[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Committee proposal

On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 05:55:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > We can determine social policy by discussion and, if necessary, by
> > voting. I'd rather see consensus, and, more specifically, see the
> > soc-ctte spell out the social norms and if the developer body
> > disagrees with it, and can't convince the soc-ctte via discussion,
> > they can force a change via a GR.
>         Voting implies the tyranny of the majority;

I should also note that we have this sort of an effect already - if someone
wishes to impose their ideas on others, for example to modify a certain
package in a way that they think is right, they can usually achieve it by
working hard enough and being patient enough to take over the package.

Yet, we also have a tyranny of the minority effect, when e.g. a person with
an uncommon opinion maintains a package in a way that contradicts with the
wishes of others.

Both of these kinds of people are free to participate in public discussions
and represent their point of view.

But then there can also be people who are not particularly interested in
imposing their ideas on others, who don't have pretentions to take over
other people's packages, or to contradict other people based on their
opinion, or to represent their point of view in public discussions.

These are actually discriminated against, because the reality seems to
favor the more ambitious, the more active, the more vocal.

Having various opinions represented through elected members of a committee
will have various effects. It will dampen the effect of any small minority,
including those who are otherwise dominant, if they couldn't elect a
candidate who would represent their exact views most vocally; they could
still counteract that by continuing to voice their opinions and convincing
others to join and 'expand' their ranks. It would also support the election
of candidates who enjoy support of the other kind of people, those who are
otherwise disproportionally discriminated against.

Bear in mind that we use a Condorcet method to elect people, meaning that
the elected people will more often lean towards consensus than not.
That could well be sufficient to avoid anything approaching a tyranny of
the majority. If not, the committee's powers would never be as far-reaching
as to actually be able to alienate any minority too much.

     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Reply to: