Hi Kelly,
I've read your email on wikien-l. I'd be very interested in your presentation. Is there a way I could access it online?
Thanks, nyenyec
On 8/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
At my Wikimania presentation ("Does Consensus Scale?") one participant brought up the consensus building methodolgy used at Apache; someone else during Wikimania (Lessig, perhaps) mentioned IETF "rough consensus". My counterpoint to both of these suggestions (and which I
It was a BoF discussion. There were essentially no materials presented; I made a short extemporaneous opening statement, and then opened the floor for discussion, which ensued for about an hour. There may be an audio recording, although if there is I am not aware of it. Sorry.
Kelly
On 8/22/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kelly,
I've read your email on wikien-l. I'd be very interested in your presentation. Is there a way I could access it online?
Thanks, nyenyec
On 8/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
At my Wikimania presentation ("Does Consensus Scale?") one participant brought up the consensus building methodolgy used at Apache; someone else during Wikimania (Lessig, perhaps) mentioned IETF "rough consensus". My counterpoint to both of these suggestions (and which I
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Did anyone present take notes? I don't have a transcript from that session online... --SJ
On 8/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
It was a BoF discussion. There were essentially no materials presented; I made a short extemporaneous opening statement, and then opened the floor for discussion, which ensued for about an hour. There may be an audio recording, although if there is I am not aware of it. Sorry.
Kelly
On 8/22/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kelly,
I've read your email on wikien-l. I'd be very interested in your presentation. Is there a way I could access it online?
Thanks, nyenyec
On 8/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
At my Wikimania presentation ("Does Consensus Scale?") one participant brought up the consensus building methodolgy used at Apache; someone else during Wikimania (Lessig, perhaps) mentioned IETF "rough consensus". My counterpoint to both of these suggestions (and which I
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
It was a BoF discussion. There were essentially no materials presented; I made a short extemporaneous opening statement, and then opened the floor for discussion, which ensued for about an hour. There may be an audio recording, although if there is I am not aware of it. Sorry.
Was there any consensus on whether consensus scales? :)
Even a roundup of any general themes would be very useful and interesting.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
I don't think there was consensus on anything; there were some strongly held opinions in the room and not all of them were mine.
There seemed to be a general feeling that RfA on WP is no longer a consensus mechanism, but instead a supermajority mechanism, and that RfA does not do a very good job of selecting administrators, but also not a very bad one.
There was some discussion of alternative mechanisms for consensus building, such as the ASF and another site the name of which eludes me.
I think it's better for someone other than myself to try to summarize the points as I was a biased participant rather than an impartial observer. Perhaps Gil Penchina, who graciously moderated the discussion, or one of the observers who was not from enwiki, could provide a better summary than I.
Kelly
On 8/23/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
It was a BoF discussion. There were essentially no materials presented; I made a short extemporaneous opening statement, and then opened the floor for discussion, which ensued for about an hour. There may be an audio recording, although if there is I am not aware of it. Sorry.
Was there any consensus on whether consensus scales? :)
Even a roundup of any general themes would be very useful and interesting.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hmm. tough one.
I do think there was general perception that TRUE consensus does not scale as too many people get involved, and that as a result two bad things happen: 1. Some votes get held hostage by a single bad actor 2. Some people are afraid to voice disagreement in fear of upsetting the consensus
I walked away thinking that Kelly's best way to prove this, is to show analytically the average time to get a vote, and the % of votes being approved - and see if the data proves that as the number of people with a vote increases, the time to decisions slows to a crawl, and more and more decisions never happen.
If true- it would be pretty compelling. No one in the room seemed to have a religious belief that 100% AYE votes were per-se the right answer
Gil Gil@wikia.com
Kelly Martin wrote:
I don't think there was consensus on anything; there were some strongly held opinions in the room and not all of them were mine.
There seemed to be a general feeling that RfA on WP is no longer a consensus mechanism, but instead a supermajority mechanism, and that RfA does not do a very good job of selecting administrators, but also not a very bad one.
There was some discussion of alternative mechanisms for consensus building, such as the ASF and another site the name of which eludes me.
I think it's better for someone other than myself to try to summarize the points as I was a biased participant rather than an impartial observer. Perhaps Gil Penchina, who graciously moderated the discussion, or one of the observers who was not from enwiki, could provide a better summary than I.
Kelly
On 8/23/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
It was a BoF discussion. There were essentially no materials presented; I made a short extemporaneous opening statement, and then opened the floor for discussion, which ensued for about an hour. There may be an audio recording, although if there is I am not aware of it. Sorry.
Was there any consensus on whether consensus scales? :)
Even a roundup of any general themes would be very useful and interesting.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/23/06, gil penchina gil@wikia.com wrote:
Hmm. tough one.
I do think there was general perception that TRUE consensus does not scale as too many people get involved, and that as a result two bad things happen:
- Some votes get held hostage by a single bad actor
- Some people are afraid to voice disagreement in fear of upsetting
the consensus
I walked away thinking that Kelly's best way to prove this, is to show analytically the average time to get a vote, and the % of votes being approved - and see if the data proves that as the number of people with a vote increases, the time to decisions slows to a crawl, and more and more decisions never happen.
If true- it would be pretty compelling. No one in the room seemed to have a religious belief that 100% AYE votes were per-se the right answer
Gil Gil@wikia.com
Now I'm confused. Voting definitely doesn't scale. But was Kelly suggesting that the fact that voting doesn't scale has something to do with a claim that consensus decision making doesn't scale?
Anthony
On 8/23/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Now I'm confused. Voting definitely doesn't scale. But was Kelly suggesting that the fact that voting doesn't scale has something to do with a claim that consensus decision making doesn't scale?
Voting doesn't scale? In the sense that you get a bad result, or what? Now *I*'m confused. :)
Steve
On 8/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Now I'm confused. Voting definitely doesn't scale. But was Kelly suggesting that the fact that voting doesn't scale has something to do with a claim that consensus decision making doesn't scale?
Voting doesn't scale? In the sense that you get a bad result, or what? Now *I*'m confused. :)
In the sense that if you vote on every single issue you wind up with...AfD...an enormous waste of time on the part of everyone.
Anthony
On 8/23/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Now I'm confused. Voting definitely doesn't scale. But was Kelly suggesting that the fact that voting doesn't scale has something to do with a claim that consensus decision making doesn't scale?
Voting doesn't scale? In the sense that you get a bad result, or what? Now *I*'m confused. :)
In the sense that if you vote on every single issue you wind up with...AfD...an enormous waste of time on the part of everyone.
See [[Direct democracy#Arguments against direct democracy]], especially "Scale. Direct democracy works extremely well on a small system."
Anthony
On 8/23/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
In the sense that if you vote on every single issue you wind up with...AfD...an enormous waste of time on the part of everyone.
I think the problem with AfD being a vote is more to do with the fact that interested parties can now begin "competing" to get "their way". I presume the idea originally was to use "consensus" to work out what the community really wanted for a given article. Sort of "hey Bill, should we keep this? Oh, I dunno, ask Mary" kind of thing. If no one has a stake, and no one is deliberately trying to "win", then it works.
As soon as people start voting "for" or "against" things - as opposed to simply having their opinion gauged - then the whole thing breaks down.
Steve
On 8/23/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Now I'm confused. Voting definitely doesn't scale. But was Kelly suggesting that the fact that voting doesn't scale has something to do with a claim that consensus decision making doesn't scale?
Voting doesn't scale? In the sense that you get a bad result, or what? Now *I*'m confused. :)
In the sense that if you vote on every single issue you wind up with...AfD...an enormous waste of time on the part of everyone.
Ah no you don't. If you voted on every issue speedy would not exist.
Again - I am not the expert - but it was a question of whether consensus (defined as everyone has to agree) vs majority vote was the best answer.
Gil
Anthony wrote:
On 8/23/06, gil penchina gil@wikia.com wrote:
Hmm. tough one.
I do think there was general perception that TRUE consensus does not scale as too many people get involved, and that as a result two bad things happen:
- Some votes get held hostage by a single bad actor
- Some people are afraid to voice disagreement in fear of upsetting
the consensus
I walked away thinking that Kelly's best way to prove this, is to show analytically the average time to get a vote, and the % of votes being approved - and see if the data proves that as the number of people with a vote increases, the time to decisions slows to a crawl, and more and more decisions never happen.
If true- it would be pretty compelling. No one in the room seemed to have a religious belief that 100% AYE votes were per-se the right answer
Gil Gil@wikia.com
Now I'm confused. Voting definitely doesn't scale. But was Kelly suggesting that the fact that voting doesn't scale has something to do with a claim that consensus decision making doesn't scale?
Anthony
On 8/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
It was a BoF discussion. There were essentially no materials presented; I made a short extemporaneous opening statement, and then opened the floor for discussion, which ensued for about an hour. There may be an audio recording, although if there is I am not aware of it. Sorry.
Kelly
There was a video recording, but I don't know the name of the person who was doing it. I believe it was the person who mentioned his experiences of living in an intentional community, if that rings any bells for anyone.
Freply