Well, the main threat to democracy has always been people perverting it
to push non-democratic agendas and overturn it. How are we gonna solve
that essential problem????
On 07/04/2021 21:46, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo(a)gnu.org> writes:
>> Hi Carlos,
>> "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos(a)systemhalted.org> skribis:
>>>> Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who disagree
>>>> with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
>>> We can and we should. You can be on the assembly mailing list and
>>> discuss exactly this point.
>>> However, radical deviation from consensus is going to be hard because
>>> you have to convince existing members to vote to change the Social
>> Here I agree with Mark Galassi, who wrote¹:
>>> I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it as needed!
We don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave reasonably when we bring up
>>> But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts
that might need it.
>> The Social Contract gives the general framework of our cooperation as a
>> group. Perhaps we’ll make it change over time, but there needs to be
>> spelled out common ground. Without this, we may lack the conditions for
>> consensus², which in turn would prevent progress altogether.
>> So at this point, I lean towards including on the mailing list only SC
>> endorsers. After all, if someone does not even agree on the basic
>> premises listed in the SC, we’re probably going to have a hard time
>> working together.
> It seems reasonable to me to require endorsement of the SC by all
> mailing list participants.
> But: can we enforce this?
> I’m sorry for involving you in my paranoia, but experience has shown
> that GNU has its share of people who do not shy away from bullying, so I
> don’t think it’s hard to imagine bad faith actors who agree to whatever
> conditions there are to participate just to be able to subvert the
> Sure, we can kick trolls and bullies off the mailing list. Is this
> In my opinion, the Social Contract is limited enough to be
> non-controversial for those who argue in good faith. However, the fact
> that we revised it in the past after discussion means that we cannot
> just freeze it and isolate it from requests to change it. How can we
> protect the essence of the Social Contract in the presence of those who
> join the assembly / the mailing list in an attempt to exercise voting
> rights to gut the Social Contract or otherwise sabotage our efforts?
> (I loathe thinking so defensively.)