But Ted, how does the minority regain the "minority's voice heard" simply by veto of new members? If they place unreasonable vetoes and hope that over time the majority will "evaporate" seems unproductive as well.
Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a project. The raised problem of community disharmony is not served with vetoes, AFAICT. On Apr 4, 2017 14:06, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: I hear it as the voice of (occasionally bitter) experience. It could easily be my own voice as well. I have found in my own limited experience that communities who pay attention to minority voices to be far better at producing real consensus. I have also found that people with a majority-rules opinion often change their opinion to minority-must-be-heard when they are no longer in the majority. That matches what Joe said pretty closely. His phrasing might not be what I would use, but his experience seems to match mine quite closely. I also really don't see how a valid statement of long experience is FUD. I certainly see a healthy dose of FUD in my day job from competitors and Joe's statement is pretty different. On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > That borders on FUD. > > Op di 4 apr. 2017 om 05:03 schreef Joseph Schaefer > <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> > > > Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you > > believed something like that were happening in a project you were working > > on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it. > >
