Resolutions/0
From Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people
Apache-like rating - I propose a slightly less geeky scale than the Apache project (which we discussed in a previous thread): that people vote by expressing an integer score from -10 to 10. And that unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise, scores are accepted for 72 hours. At the end of 72 hours, the scores are simply added together, and a positive score means approval. To reproduce Apache's veto, I also propose that a vote of -10 be tallied as -100. People can express a score with an explanation, or simply a score with nothing else. If anyone votes -10, then the resolution is stalled until that person can be convinced to change their mind (probably by the group changing the resolution in some way). A change to the resolution resets the 72-hour clock. Unless they say otherwise in their proposal, let us automatically assume that an author of a resolution gives it a +10.
--Ed Pastore
Contents |
Ratings
+10 AurSaraf 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
+6 Paul Codd MacDonald
-2 Humphrey 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Amendment to Apache-like rating
A veto MUST be accompanied by an explanation. The veto is void, if none is given.
--Manel Barkhau
Ratings
+8 Ed Pastore
+10 Humphrey 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Binary Consensus-based rating
- A resolution candidate is proposed in the wiki and can be rated positively (+) or negatively (-) by any member, by signing (wiki syntax ~~~~) in the appropriate subsection.
- It is allowed to move your rating but not to rate the same candidate twice at the same time.
- A - rating must be accompanied by an explanation in the discussion page.
If, at any point in time,
- 72 hours have already passed since a resolution was posted
- 90% of the users active in the mailing list in the past month have rated that resolution +
- no user active in the mailing list in the past month had rated it -
- an email is sent to the mailing list with the subject "[resolution] <a title for the resolution>" and the resolution quoted in the message body
- no other resolution in the same thread was accepted
then the resolution is accepted.
For convenience, proposed resolutions must be complete - they cannot reference other resolutions by name but must instead quote anything that they wish to incorporate.
--AurSaraf 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ratings
+
AurSaraf 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Humphrey 20:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
-
none
Outcome
The end-result of Resolutions/0 was that we didn't really find a consensus (note the third basic principle: without consensus, there is no law). And so instead, we decided to take these issues into account while developing the software, and then try again once we had something real to sink our teeth into. It is all well and good to talk about how we'd like to score things, but it will be much easier to discuss when we can actually experiment.
