I have a feeling the social.coop regeneration proposals/voting would have come to a better outcome by using the ideas outlined by @douginamug in https://douginamug.gitlab.io/slides/poco_coop_dm/#58 (summary page)
There seemed to be many good intentions and ideas, but not the right structure to turn them into an acceptable proposal.
Sounds like it might get implemented in loomio too. See https://mobile.twitter.com/loomio/status/1026763660318924800
Neat! Back in 2013, when we made the first draft of Bylaws for Snowdrift.coop, we proposed likert-scale style -3 to +3 score voting for voting on proposals, with requirements of *median* and *mean* minimums for different types of votes to pass.
Unfortunately, we didn't get it in action and don't have tooling for it yet. But I've still wanted to see the ideas in action (and we have more nuanced details in the drafts…)
Ooh, medians sounds complicated! I remember this https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/reinvention/issues/bcur2014specialissue/alexander/ being interested regarding the gruesome details of utility mathematics.
Multiplying negative scores by 3 and then calculating the mean has, so far, been fine for me/us.
https://git.snowdrift.coop/sd/legal/blob/master/bylaws.md is not fully in place and we plan to move away from multi-stakeholder to simpler structure, but I think you may find the ideas we worked out useful.
Median-minimum makes sure, e.g. that something fundamental (like a Bylaws change) doesn't pass with a majority opposed but just not as strong as the proponents.
*different* median or mean thresholds is like requiring majority vs supermajority etc.
More flexible than arbitrary ×3 idea…
median vs mean isn't about utility mathematics (we're skeptical about that stuff).
median just measures that a majority is above some level. It's not complicated.
So, for certain measures, could even say simply that the majority needs to be -1 or above so that you don't have a situation where the majority vote -2 but are overruled by a minority voting +3.
That reduces the incentive to strategically exaggerate scores without the way ×3 of negative scores weights negative.
@wolftune @Ultrademocracy ... starting here https://douginamug.gitlab.io/slides/poco_coop_dm/#41 and the next couple
@douginamug @Ultrademocracy@mastodon.social I was already reading the slides as you wrote. So far, I agree with everything.
Side-note: it took a while for me to buy-in, but I now support STAR voting *slightly* over score for electing representatives or other selections from multiple-choice options (as opposed to yes/no on passing a proposal).
your slide 28 reminded me of https://davidrevoy.com/article43/yin-and-yang-of-world-hunger
I've come across STAR, and on first look seems promising. I think a lot of the CES people like it too... hang on, you're a CES person! Ah yes, it all clicks together :)
I've been almost exclusively focussing on groups which are post-conversational (i.e. >8) but pre-anonymous (i.e. <150) As such, I'm assuming relatively high levels of cooperation and haven't focused on elections too much (which a law unto themselves...)
As for 3X being arbitrary, well, it is :) But so is a 2/3rds majority, or a median cut-off... these things are socially intuitive, I think there are some studies, but I'm more into direct-testing ha.
@douginamug @Ultrademocracy@mastodon.social I agree that the settings are somewhat arbitrary in that there's a judgment call for how far to weight the competing factors (e.g. status quo vs change).
"keeping things the same" as an option is a presentation detail. It can't be rejected at the same time as rejecting alternatives though. It's just just like any other option.
social.coop is a a coop-run corner of the fediverse, a cooperative and transparent approach to operating a social platform. We are currently closed to new memberships while we improve our internal processes and policies, and plan to re-open to new folks when that work is complete. [9/2/2018]