Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I mean, you select some solutions
(before the vote start), then you start the vote and block any new
proposition.
At some point that has to be right, as long as there initially were
ample opportunities to present new alternatives
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).
The question should really be, "Was there an opportunity to suggest gray
before the voting started?" In a truly democratic system there is no
excuse for negligence.
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.
When a large number of options are offered, there needs to be a way to
narrow those options. When 10 options are offered the top vote getter
can easily win a plurality of 15% which then means that 85% of the
participants voted for something else. Several rounds of voting where
the lowest vote getter(s) are dropped until someone has an absolute
majority is a workable system. The second round of voting in French
elections somewhat reflects that. Transferable ballots try to
accomplish the same thing in one round.
Once something has been decided there still needs to be a process that
allows for change. The conditions for change (in the current situation
in relation to a logo) need to be made clear. This will allow newcomers
to have a say, and it will allow others to change their vote. An
overthrow threshhold needs to be established that prevents rapid changes
in policy between two very equally supported alternatives. Thus
'''changing''' an agreed logo could require that 60% of voters
support
the change. Voting could take place on any alternative proposal with
minimal support (say 10 Wikipedians). Voting could remain open for an
extended period of time: 90 days? 6 months? The threshhold would not be
very easy to reach, but everyone's opportunity to having meaningful
influence would be respected.
>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.
>
At times a decision MUST be made to prevent everything from grinding to
a halt. An excess of democracy was a fatal flaw for the Paris Commune
of 1871. By contrast American Republicans deserve all the appropriate
credit for having no fear of making the wrong decision. ;-)
>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_.
>
The scaling problem is real. Nevertheless every formalization carries
the risk that it will diminish the consensus process. The more
hard-wired the formalization, the greater the risk. To support the
implementation of a majority opinion, the minority must be able to see
the result as fair and not unnecessarily diminishing their rights.
>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.
>
Candidates in a "representative" democracy are different from issues.
An elected representative must often decide on a very wide range of
issues that were never a factor in his election. Inevitably he must
take positions with which you do not agree.
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.
Voting only ''appears'' to make things easier. More rules seems
just as
anti-consensus.
>But it is JUST A LOGO. So a serious amount of
relaxation is probably
>in order. :-)
>
>--Jimbo
>
Certainly
Next time, a non-American organizer!?
I don't think that Eric is American.
Ec