Hi, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> writes:
> Only in retrospect of having encountered this situation did I realize > there is a fundamental flaw in the GCD process (at least in my > opinion)... in that there is a presumption of moving forward and > accepting the proposed changes (in some capacity), rather than > maintaining the status quo. E.g. a person has to propose improvements in > order to reject the proposal, but there is nowhere in the process that > handles a fundamental disagreement about the proposal in any form. This > is contrary to any other genuine consensus process I have worked with. The fundamental disagreement is expressed with “I disapprove”, meant to be a last resort if all attempts to build consensus failed. I’m curious how else this could be handled, based on your experience. Ludo’.
