>>>>> "Guillem" == Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes:
Guillem> The key here, I guess, is that each situation needs to be
Guillem> evaluated independently, and no magic decision tree will
Guillem> ever fix trying to work things out with other people, in
Guillem> good faith, and trying to find solutions or compromises
Guillem> that satisfy others and us too. But maybe this is asking
Guillem> too much, dunno. :/
Hi.
I strongly agree with the above--that things need to be evaluated on a
situation-by-situation basis.
I'm responding not in the hopes of convincing you or persuading you (or
really anyone else).
It's obvious that we see the world differently.
However, I feel that if I simply said nothing, I would not be respecting
the thought you've put into your proposal and to your position.
So, I'm responding to say that I've tried to listen and understand where
you're coming from, and to show where I think our differences are.
Thanks for the work that you put into this. While I disagree, I value
what you've done here.
My experience in leading groups to consensus is that it is often much
easier to focus on specific details and specific situations than on
general principles.
It is very easy to get people to appear to agree when you are talking
about generalities that can be widely interpreted.
However, in practice when you go try and apply those generalities to
specific cases, you find that the same divisions exist and that the
generalities don't help much.
There are exceptions: I think the Social Contract has done significant
good for the project.
In my experience those exceptions tend to be agreements to general
principles not born out of conflict, but rather out of a community's
desire to define itself.
In contrast, when there is conflict, I've found that you get better
results focused on specifics.
But Guillem is right that as we move forward we'll find things where the
specific details we focus on in this GR do not apply. We'll also find
cases where circumstances have changed, we have new information, or new
ways of thinking about something emerge.
At that point, we can (and I think should) start to derive general
principles from the specifics we adopt in the GR.
I hope we take this GR as the feeling of the project at a single point
in time and accept that things will change. I hope that we do not force
ourselves to have future GRs to revisit aspects of what we decide in the
coming weeks when we can come to agreement that things have changed.
I respect that this is an area where people can look at the world
differently. Thanks for placing option G on the ballot: if the project
believes that focusing on principles is the right way forward here, we
now have a way to concretely express that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature