Jimmy Wales wrote:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
This rigid vote where no alternative proposition can be submit is at the antipode of my vision of a consensus.
Well, this logo contest is an experiment in voting. It has gone well in some ways, and not so well in other ways. In any case, no matter how we evaluate it overall, we can all agree that it has been educational, exposing some of the issues that we are going to have to deal with as we form scalable, stable, consensus-driven decision methods.
I just hope people concluded something about those discussions.
And I don't see anything encouraging in this discussion.
What do you mean? I see a lot that's encouraging. Look at all the discussion that we are having. Look how hard people are working to try to find mutually agreeable solutions. Look how civilized and cautious the decisionmaking is.
I didn't read all post (translate is fastidious for me), but in those I read I see words as "silly", "pushy French attitude" and other not so friendly sentence. Hope it's just translation mistake ;o). On the other hand, I didn't read any proposition to make vote process become more close to a consensus. For me, the vote method is not the real problem (average method & Condorcet are not so different in fact). Imho, the problem is a standard vote doesn't offer any dynamic solution. I mean, you select some solutions (before the vote start), then you start the vote and block any new proposition. For example, imagine you want to select a color. Favorite colors are black and white (just an example), so people propose those 2 colors to be voted. After some time you see both colors have closed score. With standard vote system you must select one of those colors (by any method) and make happy only half of people instead of be able to propose a gray that may satisfy more people (just an example). I think discussion, proposition and vote have better to take place concurrently. I mean allow participant to propose new solution and change vote during the decision process. I'm aware that is only a personal point of view but I expected to ear some alternative solution instead of the eternal debate on the best way of count vote. But perhaps I just miss those discussions.
The current experiment is a good one because the choice of a logo from any of the fine leading contenders is not a life or death decision for the project. None of the choices available to us are bad, and so we can learn from this in a low-risk way.
Later, there will have to be some major policy decisions. In the past, these have always been made by consensus, which in reality boils down to us listening to all sides and encouraging different factions to accomodate each other so that we can find solutions that are better all around for everyone.
That process works, or at least it has so far. But there have always been concerns about how well it would scale. The more people we have involved, the more important it is that we have a more formalized _process_ that people can support even when they don't support the final _outcome_.
Let me explain that further with an example from the real world. I support, generally speaking, the processes of constitutionally limited democracy. So in that sense, I support the system *even when the candidate I don't prefer* gets elected.
In a small group, the consensus method works. When a final decision has to be made, then a benevolent dictator who really does look out for the interests of as many different people as possible also works. People can, and have, supported that process as effective, even when they didn't get their way on every last detail.
As we get bigger, we need to preserve and improve on our success in that area: when decisions are made, they need to be as inclusive as possible, i.e. to make as many people happy as possible, and at the same time, they need to be made by a process that people can support even when their exact preferences are not chosen.
Do we agree about that?
I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create some rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
We've done a couple of experiments with voting. I've always been a skeptic of voting, but the one thing that voting can do is generate legitimacy for decisions. People can support the outcome of a vote, even when the vote doesn't go their way.
I like one of the logos best of all. I hope that it wins. But if it doesn't, I can live with that. They are all reasonable choices, and I like that we went through a process that people can live with.
But it is JUST A LOGO. So a serious amount of relaxation is probably in order. :-)
--Jimbo
Sure, more friendly are relations, more easy are decisions ;o)
If I enter the debate it's just because I worried to see Oliezekat spend all his time to try to found alternative proposition (he really worked hard) and to be bother just because he didn't strictly respect the saintly rules. Imho, the wikipedians must to be more flexible and patient; especially with those you have difficulty to speak/understand English. Next time, a non-American organizer!?
Thanks for your answers.
Aoineko