Re: Arabeyes Charter Proposal

[Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:45:14 +0100
  "Chahine M. Hamila" <mch at chaham dot com> wrote:
> > If the charter is there to address conflict resolution and nothing else,
> > then I think a simple
> >
> >  "All decisions that might have conflicting views will be taken a vote on"
> >
> > will do -- have a feeling its not.
> 
> It doesn't and it didn't. Ultimately a hierarchical structure in itself DOES
> resolve conflicts naturally and efficiently in many cases. Plus the voting 
> system itself can't be a simple majority votes in every case (essentially
> core team changes).

[snip snip]

> > Don't see the value of it at all.  The coordinator will be there with a
> > title, he/she can do anything else they like and anyone else can do
> > the coordinator's job if the other party so decides, if there is conflict
> > then 'core' takes a vote.  Hmmm... sounds like what's new here is the
> > addition of titles then.
> 
> And a hierarchy. We'll work on a cooperative mode as long as it works. It
> won't always work (and we saw it didn't) and votes are often long and go
> against logic in that sense that, why the hell would I vote on minor
> issues of L10N for example when Isam's the doing the work? The vote way
> is always open, but ultimately and on issues where there's no vote or
> where the conflict is only between one person and the coordinator, the
> coordinator's view takes priority. Votes are for important issues, voting
> for every little step we might disagree on is not a way to conduct a
> project.

I'm not trying to rehash anything - if this is to become law, I need to
know what type of conduct is to be expected.

Two things -

1. The following exchange took place,

    Nadim wrote:
    > to is "pulling rank" on someone else.  In other words, "I am
    > the coordinator of such and such and so my word is the ultimate
    > decision maker" - which I believe ought to be avoided --my
    > opinion--

    Mohammed replied:
    > Again, the "I'm the coordinator of such and such.." you mention
    > above has no value if the majority votes against it. So, there is
    > your safeguard against that happening.

   With Chahine's "is only between one person and the coordinator" comment
   above leads me to the following statement - all conflicts are between one
   person and someone else (or a group); so what's being said here ?  Are
   votes only to be taken on group conflicts ? what about a single person
   who's in disagreement - the so-called coordinator decides ?

2. I'm utterly confused.  Your reply above doesn't refute the paragraph
   ending with "Hmmm..." - how does structure and hierarchy resolve conflicts
   naturally when its been implied that authority and position will not be an
   issue in settling any points ?

As for the need for titles - I can only say that its a truly sad idea!
And in my opinion a major factor into all these problems/issues.

Clarification - the votes I was after are only for things "that might
have conflicting views" (as is noted above) and not for any "minor issues"
(we survived 6 months with MAJOR progress without so much as a hiss, mind
you and there were plenty of disagreements and give-n-take).

Maybe in a different thread, I could be educated onto why (in detail and
in bruising truth) you think "it didn't" work (as is noted above).

 - Nadim


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/