CommunityDecisionSystemTalk

Comments on proposed community decision process

I believe the proposal page should remain free of discussion. A separate section on the discussion page can be used during the refinement phase, where the specific proposal is refined. The moderator is responsible for keeping the discussion on track during the refinement phase: after the scope of the proposal has been established during phase 1, phase 2 should remain within this scope. (Any additional questions and issues not in scope can be deferred to another proposal.)

I suggest the moderator should have the nominal responsibility of editing the proposal page based on discussion to accommodate any apparent consensus. I believe commenters are reluctant to edit a proposal on their own as they are unsure if they are truly reflecting a community view and do not want to trigger an edit war. By having one person with primary responsibility for keeping track of the discussion, this will avoid the proposal from flip-flopping in many different directions. (Any commenter can still edit the proposal page if they feel it is warranted. The moderator will however moderate the discussion.)

Regarding voting: not all decisions warrant a community vote. In addition, for some types of decisions, it is problematic for those who are not affected by a given decision to have an equal say with those who will be strongly affected by a decision. Unfortunately, I'm uncertain as to how to resolve this, given that there has been some reluctance to assign specific roles to community members.

Setting a timetable for all decisions is important. I don't believe a fixed period of say two weeks should be stated; as part of the initial phase, the stakeholders should agree to participate in the decision-making process and decide upon an appropriate time frame.

-- IsaacLin - 22 Mar 2009

I disagree that read access to the discussion page should be blocked during phase 2. It is useful to see the discussion that has taken place to understand the background context. Community members must observe a certain dedication that motivates them to update the proposal page, without an artificial incentive.

-- IsaacLin - 22 Mar 2009

Here's KDE's online voting procedure: http://ev.kde.org/rules/online_voting.php

An online-voting procedure is a very serious thing that can't be just implemented like this. It has to be ratified by a General Assembly of the Foswiki Association ... which we don't have yet. That's why I am afraid that we can't decide on a CommunityDecisionSystem right now, e.g. you can't decide on an online-voting using an online-voting. You need a higher order decision instance.

I am afraid any online-voting that is not anonymous is invalid anyway. Only the organizer of the voting is allowed to match ballots to identities to weed out invalid votes.

Once the Foswiki Association is in place, the initial power is split up between the Board of Directors and the General Assembly. Only these two bodies can give away decision power, i.e. by ratifying an online-voting system, by creating comittees/task teams and so on. Certain decisions can be made by the board itself even without asking the General Assembly, some can only be done by the General Assembly. Some things like changing the bylaws themselves can only be ratified under even stricter constraints. Day-to-day operational decisions are taken care within a comitttee/task team that has got the mandate for a well defined agenda. For now Foswiki failed to really execute the power of task team decision finding because task teams (a) got abandoned or stale for quite some time (b) overlap in their agenda (c) have a too broad and blurry agenda (d) are blocked in decision finding by non-members of the task team (e) are not evaluated after a given timespan (f) are not closes or get a renewed mandate.

-- MichaelDaum - 23 Mar 2009

First off, Isaac i hope you did not get me wrong, i corrected your correction of my broken english, because i thought,you tried to let it sound better. I was not aware you actually really tried to change the meaning...otherwise i would not have simply changed it.

I disagree a bit Michael. I can see we need a independent entity as we get with the Association. There is no doubt and no dicussion abou that.

But yet the project ist stucked and we cant simply wait until

1. The Association is founded
2. Members of it are voted, structure is build
3. The Association is ready for such decisions

So yet, without such an entity, we need to go forward. So i think its not bad to establish such an Decision-System. While i think half-public voting can be usefull (so only e.g. the Moderator can have a look at it). But we still need to start this process, we will need this with the Association either ( even if we need to change it due the official rules needed for an Association). In addition, its not only about voting here, its a process of spot out the POV of the community and the best way to solve a problem for Foswiki.

Isaac to the restriction of the Discussion page: That the view is restricted has a special meaning. It should point the writer to the fact ( or let him feel and see that later ), that simply talking wihtout extracting content is not honoured in the decision. We need to start to refactor our knowledge into more precise summarys. So if you dont block read access, people still reference on the Discussion page, that they "had written it somewhere". In addition, also feeling, especially the hot and impulsive ones are written down there. They should not take effect on phase 2 or the poll, we need to get more rational there.

Also we need a fixed schedule for the decisions. We tend to take a lot of time for everything, even the critical ones. So i think a fixed period is quite usefull. I think 2 weeks is fair. Dont forget, the scope and the topic of the decision must be roughly there before you can initiate the process. So you dont start with nothing when the time ticks. Anyway, if the period seems to short, we can still adjust here. The only thing i think is important, that it is a fixed one

-- EugenMayer - 23 Mar 2009

Eugen, you are correct: I did not intend to change your proposal substantially, just clean it up and try to clarify. I misunderstood originally that you intended to restrict read access to the discussion page. My objections remain; commenters should be fully motivated to make their opinions as clear as possible to give them the best chance of being heard, which means properly integrating the information they collect into the proposal page. However, just as in meetings a minute-taker is assigned the responsibility of capturing the discussion, I suggest that the moderator be given the task of ensuring the appropriate information is captured in the proposal page. I don't think blocking read access is necessary; everyone is capable of using the proposal page appropriately.

I agree with deciding upon a fixed schedule, but it does not seem wise to set the same time frame for all possible decisions. The usual first steps for making a decision are to identify the stakeholders, identify the scope of the decision, and set the necessary time frame. I believe the same ought to be done with the Foswiki team.

Michael: Contrast with the current decision making process, which largely is a quick poll of whoever happens to be on IRC at the time, and then if someone has been not following the project for a few weeks, they cannot later determine what decisions have been made. Not all decisions reach the importance level of the general assembly. The execs in the company where I work do not dictate the process our team uses to make a design decision, but we have learned work procedures to help make a decision, should we wish to employ them. I see this proposal as a tool that could be used when the stakeholders involved agree. And even assuming it is desirable to have the general assembly pass judgment on this tool, it still needs to be worked out ahead of time in detail so the assembly can just ratify or not ratify the procedure.

-- IsaacLin - 23 Mar 2009

A CommunityDecisionSystem is no every-day decision in itself. This has to be ratified by the General Assembly. You can't simply implement and impose it on Foswiki. See the AssociationArticles §12 where it is roughly outlined as "Internet Voting".

Still, live goes on as part of the every-day work on the project as it is now and decisions are made by individuals, sometimes on behalf of all of Foswiki.

-- MichaelDaum - 07 Apr 2009

I may be wrong, but I did not think this proposal was intended to address matters requiring the approval of the general assembly. It's the "decisions ... made by individuals, ... on behalf of all of Foswiki" that may need closer attention, to help ensure that everyone can co-ordinate their efforts in the same direction, instead of many contradictory directions. Nonetheless, I agree that the proposal cannot be imposed on others; all interested parties must agree to it first.

-- IsaacLin - 07 Apr 2009

Actually what this is going to pay attention to is, that decisions are not made under the behalf of Foswiki anymore. Because decisions are announced, structured, deadlined and opened to every member of the community visiting the central-meeting-point, foswiki.org.

As i wrote, i would start the implementation on the 29.03.09 and so i do, this does NOT mean, it will get introduced when i am done. Reading up this talking page, only few people voiced anything, only few go concerns.

Michael raised, that this must be more formal because we will have a association and that needs more legal voting. But yet, we do not have one and we can sleep until the association is alive. I mean, i don't disagree with Michael on this point at all, but we need to start to act know. And this process of decision will get tweaked, replaced or whatever, by the association. but even if the association will be around end of this month, just think about, when it will be able to build such a decision-system.

Isaac raised, that some details as restrictions to the talk page and the fixed-deadline are not optimal. I guess, as i don't know, whether he is right or not, we will have to find out. So i have no problems starting with individual deadlines and no restriction to talk pages and see, how this works out ( so like Isaac proposed ). If this will not be efficient, that's what i could think of, we can tweak it or try it the way Andre and i have thought about.

This is a process and you all can influence it. Not speaking up means : No interests or no concerns. We can wait 2 months for all people going over this ( maybe... or not . I guess when the small wiki-app is done and we can run a test-decision ( no real one, just a virtual one ) more people will stop over and look. And then, we will have more voices, ideas and tweaks we can work in.

-- EugenMayer - 07 Apr 2009

Hi all,

I just wanted to state, that I will support any democratic decision making approach, that is clear, easy to use and works. We should always ask ourselves. Is there a way to achieve the same with less administration.

Best regards

-- MartinSeibert - 08 Apr 2009

Registered users on Foswiki using their real names (no aliases) - how do you know a name is an alias? Frederick Bloggs might register as JohnSmith; how do you know that's an alias? Even if it is, it might be an alias that Fred is well known by. I think the alias constraint is nonsense and should be dropped. The voting should be limited to members of the association, something that is clearly defined by the association.

Commenting but less refactoring - no separation between information and "additions" or POVs - this sentence doesn't make any sense. What does it mean?

I share the view that restricting read access to the discussion page is the wrong approach. The discussion page will contain essential argument which, if it is not exposed, will simply be re-iterated again and again as people become aware of the decision.

I am not convinced there is any rush to get this decision-making process in place. If there was a list of "pending decisions" that we have been unable to take, then I might agree, but right now i don't see that list. So I perceive this process as being part of the documentation that supports how the association works, As such, it needs to be clear that this process cannot override decisions made by the general assembly or the Board, as laid out in the articles of association.

-- CrawfordCurrie - 08 Apr 2009

I agree with Michael, Isaac and Crawford on the read access issue to the talk page: read access should always be available and we can expect people to follow the process correctly

On the alias issue.. well we really can't know if someone is using an alias, so it should be dropped.

The fixed schedule may be a problem.. in our ReleaseProcess we have the 14-day rule, but if it can't be applied, we seek consensus or a vote in a meeting. Most of the cases are solved by consensus reached. I think we should have something similar to other decisions.

-- GilmarSantosJr - 09 Apr 2009

I have waited a bit before I commented on this process and I have also been away on vacation.

• The suggestion is a bit complicated. Let us make it all a little more simple. Until we have the association in place I would simply use the ReleaseProcess. It is simple. Only problem we have is the lack of regular events where we can discuss and vote.
• I am against a process where anyone can raise proposals and force the entire community to make hasty decisions. And I bet half the proposals will be decisions for work noone in reality is willing or have time to do. Just look at how feature proposals are piling up. At least they do not harm anyone. But bad hasty decisions forced by a 2 week decision cycle and no real commitment to implement the decisions can be directly harmful. Just remember how the Tasks web at one point was a machine gun salute of ideas and jobs that in most cases never happened. I would like to see a community decision process with some moderation, and a process that assures that decisions are deferred till next "meeting" if the debate is not over.
• The idea of 3 time periods with periods without read access to comments raised. I do not understand any sense in that. I would personally copy the content of a discussion page and make it available somewhere else should this proposal ever be implemented. You cannot stop or hide the debate.

Some more constructive bullets.

• Decisions per internet vote should be in Community web except for features which continues like today with current feature proposal process.
• Decisions per internet vote should be public. I see no reason for anonymous voting for normal decisions. The situation to totally different for PERSON decision. Voting for the board members for the association is not within the scope of this decision process but it could as a crazy example be that one day we decide to vote for who shall be leading the marketing team. Voting for people should be arranged to be as anonymous as practically possible.
• Good decisions require debate. And it must be possible to debate the proposals before during and after the vote. And to redo decisions should we learn something after the decision has been made. Debate must be open to everyone. Voting should be open to current registered foswiki.org users until the association is formed (the real one - not the initial bootstrap one). Once we have the association voting should be limited to members. But debate should be open to anyone.
• The process needs to be moderated. We need to assign maybe two people that has the duty and the right to moderate refactoring (soft security) to avoid edit wars and to seek consensus instead of polarized angry wars. It is better to have a compromize consensus that most are happy with than risking splitting the community in two camps and risking forks for silly reasons. The moderation should not be limiting the access to refactoring proposals to the proposer and moderator. Just to avoid edit wars and ensure that edits represents the community as broad as possible. This proposal is a good example. I do not like the proposal as it is written. I feel like deleting it all and rewriting it from scratch. But I know if I do that, I may insult the proposer and I have no desire to insult a person I like and respect very much. But seen from the above statements it needs to be rewritten because there is not a broad agreement for it and the concerns are very different. One thing the moderators should be able to is stop proposals if they seem not serious or unrealistic to ever implement. As an example: someone may come by and raise a proposal that Foswiki should address a university in India and activate a lot of young programmer students to improve Foswiki. Nice dream. And if someone wants to do it who would vote against? But is the proposal serious? Is the proposer willing to commit 2 months of work on the task? If no - I do not want to see such proposals up for voting. It should be deferred till someone commits. Same reason that the current release proposal process does not take a proposal into any decision unless there is a committed developer willing to do it - some day.

I raised a proposal for virtual meetings on the mailing list. I will repeat it with some changes based on the feedback.

• We have a community meeting every 2 weeks
• Community decisions that are ready for meeting are put on an agenda and this should probably happen some days prior to the meeting so people knows it is comming.
• The meeting starts for example Sunday evening at 12:00 GMT and takes place on IRC. It ends Monday at 22:00 GMT. During these many hours people can come and go on the IRC and debate. Channel should be logged naturally. During the last hour Monday from 21-22 GMT we have a more formal meeting where we wrap up and counts the votes given on the proposal topic and give people a last chance to cast a vote or change the one they have given. And we then have a decision. The advantage of this model is that it allows people from all timezones to debate and vote but at the same time still has a formal event and deadline.

From my moderater proposal above it should be the moderators that decide if a proposal is ready for proposal or needs more debate.

Until the association is in place - we should try and experiment a little with this decision process and limit the use to few but urgent proposals. And be open to the fact that decisions may have to be taken formally again after the accociation is in place. When the association is in place I would see the board members as natural moderators.

-- KennethLavrsen - 09 Apr 2009

Hallo to all

I wanna do a suggestion, which in one hand is "top modern" -- like the principles of fos and wiki -- and in the other hand in the sens, that it is also one of the oldest principles which take place in the brain for making decision.The brain makes decisions on the basics of relevance and experience.

So far it would be an new creative manner to do the decision-making in a community. But it has to be used play-money to take action.

This system of decision-making is known under the name of "prediction market". I think for the future of foswiki, it would be interesting to realize this idea. I know its a provocative remark, but still some thing for considering, because it would be revolutionary on a System like foswiki, and it would give an impact on it, because many people would look towards Foswiki. Foswiki becomes more brainlike, and this would be the real impact on wiki's in general.

Se also http://drupal.org/project/pm or others project when googeling. Regards

-- SaschaBuechel - 13 May 2010