X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.4 at av02.lsn.net
Message-ID: <560DC423.1080203@ecosensory.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:39:15 -0500
From: John Griessen <john AT ecosensory DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: Stop playing stupid political games with gEDA
References: <0788cca443ca40a88d6e21f1a216a759 AT net2air DOT co> <560D81CE DOT 1010800 AT jump-ing DOT de> <201510012211 DOT t91MBXPI025587 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <560DB972 DOT 30203 AT jump-ing DOT de> <201510012306 DOT t91N6MXc027775 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <201510012306.t91N6MXc027775@envy.delorie.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 10/01/2015 06:06 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Is this extra
> group really needed?  What's its purpose?  What benefit does it give
> us over the existing geda-gaf and pcb groups?

Yeah.  Why?

98% consensus is a good way.

I hear too much about voting or popularity. Voting with a victory claimed by
a largest vote in such a small pool is just some kind of takeover strategy.
The largest vote getter might get 30%.  With this group of people and their
priorities, 30% might mean 4 people.

Consensus requires talking things out, not politically battling things out.

If no consensus emerges, fork it all.  See what that does for you.