Talk:Resolutions/0
From Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people
Contents |
Original proposal
I propose that we begin experimenting on ourselves by using a scoring system in our internal communications. My proposal appears between the two sets of ----.
RESOLUTION
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.
We are such a small group that this is overkill: we do not really need such a nuanced system. But I think it will be helpful to try it on ourselves and see what happens.
So... please give my above proposal a score. Or give an explanation why you do not wish to use this system (which I will consider to be a -10).
— Ed Pastore
Proposed modification
Wow, so decimals are geeky? I personally liked the apache system, because you can express your opinion without any commitment, by staying between +1 and -1, which if I understand correctly, isn't possible with this system. Or is a score with this system just like apache * 10, and only 10 or -10 really count, with the rest only expressing sentiment.
- I did not investigate Apache's system thoroughly, but I think the only way in which mine differs is that all scores are tallied at the end (and that yes, it is multiplied by ten). So a score of 5 mathematically expresses half-support.
- The reason I propose nuanced scoring like this is that people can show different levels of support for different competing propositions. If one has no opinion but wants to comment, one can vote zero. — Ed Pastore
"a vote of -10 be tallied as -100. People can express a score with an" Is this to be understood as it takes 10 people to override one veto?
- I suggested that as a convenience for this group, since we have 11 members. If everyone participated in a vote and ten people gave it total support 10*10=100, one person could still veto with a -10(*10)=-100. — Ed Pastore
I'd like the following modification. A veto MUST be accompanied by an explanation. The veto is void, if none is given.
- +8 — Ed Pastore
— Manuel Barkhau
Criticism
I don't like it. I don't feel there's any merit to scores that say "I half support this decision". For such a small group, even for beta-testing, I'd support a system where you need X% of the members to vote "+" and 0% of the members to vote "-", with no time limit (it is decided the moment X% voted "+" and all "-" votes, if any, were already removed, provided that there were at least 72 hours to comment on the latest revision).
But
- You were the first to offer a system,
- It achieves the purpose of consensus based decision making
- There's always a third suggestion that's better than the second, and if we open this we will never decide on how to decide
- A system similar to my own is already in testing in my design document's writing process
- This system doesn't protect itself, so we can try other systems after we get a feel for how this one works
So I feel it makes lots of sense to agree to your suggestion.
I propose a change, and that is that ALL negative votes are weighted x10 (otherwise it is a majority rule decision process with veto rights for everyone, not a consensus decision process).
However, with or without the amendment, you have my +10
I am fully behind you on this.
It will be interesting to see how this works out.
— Aur Saraf
- It would only be a majority rule if everyone in favor voted +10. But people should feel free to vote less for anything they are not totally excited about. For example, given your commentary on my resolution, I would suggest you change your score to something more like +2.
- Nope. If five users vote +3 and four users vote -3, the majority wins, even though it is far from consensus. — Aur Saraf
- Those four who scored it a -3 were not opposed enough to the resolution to give it a more negative score; so it passes. If they were more against it, they could have each given it a -4, and the resolution would have failed, even though they were in the minority. — Ed Pastore
- If all negatives are scored *10, it means that any expression of negative attitude is effectively a veto unless there is extreme support from all other members. So, I give your above amendment: -7
- No, it only means that consensus is defined as "~90% agreement". — Aur Saraf
- (In your system, that would be close to a veto unless everyone else was wildly in favor. So in that case I would change my vote to a -3.) —Ed Pastore
- The idea of consensus is that everyone should mildly agree, or at least almost everybody wildly agree. Isn't it? — Aur Saraf
- But multiplying negatives by 10 means that any slight disagreement is a very strong vote against the bill. I could, however, see multiplying negatives by X, and then let X be tweaked until a good definition of consensus is found in the wild. — Ed Pastore
- As a non-developer, I'm a fan of the --1, -1, 0, +1, ++1 system I saw earlier.
- This easily translated into "i'm strongly opposed," "i don't care," or "I strongly agree" to me.
- All the extra numbers seem add an unnecessary level of complexity.
- If you're keen on complexity, the --/++1 system included decimal points for those wishing a finer level of specificity, WITHOUT requiring everyone else to do so.
- — Christopher Ritter
-2 (-20%, -.2, etc). I don't like "72 hours", especially not so soon. People should be able to discuss until they are ready to get behind something. For instance, I like the three-option system below better, but this system would have passed had it followed its own rules (it's been over three days since the amendment was added). Humphrey 03:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Star system
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.
Much less geeky would be a common 5 star rating. When do we really need to know more than *no way, **has flaws, ***acceptable, ****worthwhile, *****awesome - or words to that effect. We can retain the maths you propose but attach -100 to *, +10 to ***** etc.
- I am not a mathematician and am not sure which would be preferable: a scale that ranges from negative to positive or a scale that ranges from a low number to a high one. But by making adjusters for the stars, I think what you are proposing comes out to something like -100, -5, 0, 5, 10.
- But ***=0 doesn't seem to make sense, does it? — Ed Pastore
I propose that the system be flexible enough to allow a bunch of geeks to over-ride the 5 star system to be able to access more subtle levels of control but my advice is by default - KEEP IT SIMPLE.
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.
I propose that communities are given the choice to allow or disallow time limited resolutions. In my own view they can sometimes be very dangerous and would need accompanied by safeguards to make sure decisions are quorate. There are a number of important US laws in force today that were passed by VERY small numbers of elected members while the rest of the house was not there! By default I would prefer if decisions were made once "critical mass" is reached. What critical mass actually is can be decided by each community and might be different for different kinds of resolutions.
To reproduce Apache's veto, I also propose that a vote of -10 be tallied as -100.
In some cases we may need some other more flexible and scaleable maths, but this will get us started.
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.
I also agree that a veto needs to have an explanation, even a holding explanation like "My research results are coming in against this, I'll collate them and post my ideas tomorrow."
+6 or 4 stars (****)
Paul Codd MacDonald
Yes/no system
The problem with having too wide a range is that every user defines her/his threshold of acceptability - my 3 may mean I approve, someone else's 3 may mean no, but better than the rest. Even if we define what '3' means, as you suggest below, users are prone to ignore these recommendations.
I say we keep it simple - yes, no, not sure. Anything more nuanced warrants a comment, or too much complexity (like ranking among yes and no responses).
In market research, where I have some experience, surveys are typically given a finer gradation of possible response choices where we want their response to be more heavily influenced by the user's gut response. The fewer choices given, the more we force them to come to a decision, ie think about their response and thus the response becomes more heavily influenced by rational thought.
In this case, contrary to what was posted by others on the list, I think having a less finely graded system (such as yes/no) will be more likely to foster consensus than having a -10/+10 or -1/+1 nearly-continuous grading system where users can pick a number more or less at random, thus facilitating impulsive decisions. Having a less finely graded scoring system will also force users to voice their more nuanced opinions to qualify their 'yes' or 'no' instead of giving a score of 5.7 which they may feel expresses their opinion without their having to expend the effort to comment specifically.
- I think that may be true in limited scenarios, but we are talking about something that many people would be participating in frequently and regularly. After regularly using a nuanced scoring system for even a few days, people would start to make nuanced scores. Systems like IMDB seem to do very well with a 10-point scale, because their regular users are familiar with 10-point rating. Example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411061/ratings — Ed Pastore
Comments from the group?
— Jacki Buros
- Yes/No is basically the same as the apache system, with anything between +1 and -1 not being counted, but just to express sentiment.
- We could just count "yes" and "no", that's probably the least confusing. — Manuel Barkhau
- I very much like the three-option system here (+, -, no vote). People can still express fractions without it leading away from consensus-building, and on the other hand it's very similar to the for/against votes used in gov't today (less culture shock). I'm willing to + it with the caveat that we should NOT consider Resolution 0 sacred in any way, even if it passes. Some of the stuff ("active in the mailing list in the past month") will change as our system of interaction changes, and some other stuff (72 hours, 90%) are ballparks that will probably bear refinement. Humphrey 01:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
An attempt to arrange
I am going to change Resolutions/0/ in a way that I think would make deciding comfortable:
One section per proposed resolution, and below it in a subsection everyone can express their vote (opinions should be left for the Talk pages).
If this doesn't work out to be comfortable, we can move to having one wiki page per resolution suggestion and having the Resolutions/n page embed them all or link to them all.
--AurSaraf 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
