Meta: What do we keep and what do we change to the current Loomio protocol?

• Delaying votes as long as possible isn't always the best strategy. There clearly are instances going straight to a vote is far more efficient. Things that have been prepared outside of loomio or things that are simple plain and forward for example.
• The right tool for the right job. Loomio is a voting platform. It's not designed to be a discussion platform and it clearly doesn't work in that sense. People are overwhelmed by emails, discussions are very hard to follow if you aren't following up full time. Stuff often descends into pointless trolling just like FB discussions do.
• There is also a problem calling a group a permanent assembly when it isn't it a tool for preparation of a AFK GA for the moment. A real permanent Assembly should be a goal we aim to. Would require quora and automatic linking with memberschip db.

I 've adopted the point of view of someone who has to organize a general assembly.
At the end of the online process I want to have:
- Proposals ready to be voted as is;
- A clear idea of the objections that will be raised.

But I don't want to close the door to people who have an intuition and don't know how to formalize it. Hence the Brainstorming zone.

• I think your two first point are related with each-other.
  If someone considers a statement straightforward and someone else doesn't, then you could have pointless trolling. We might need moderators at some point by the way.

• You can mute a discussion so you aren't spammed.
  The mass of information has more to do with the content than with the tool. A forum that would be too active would produce the same feeling. I haven't seen much trolling in this group so far.

• The tool is experimental, it's been presented during last assembly. I didn't receive any objection about the name at that time. We can rename it if you want. Now we are in rush because we have set a deadline to October because of the Icelandic election. I think that most of the confusion comes from precipitation. I wish I had time to work on Loomio at the labs.

If we walk the path of holacracy , please read this post from the Loomio Blog and consider the possibility of working together on a Loomio page on our wiki.

To keep the zone's simple .... we need a archive(s) - trash place... otherwise in very short time there will be to much on the desktop... Once a topic is finished we need to be able to get it out the ZONE 123 levels.

Maybe LVL3 could be renamed as GA zone or GA AGENDA ?

Suppose one has an idea to increase the fee to 1$/month. it starts in LV1. He gets 1 like
One reaction is that it can stay the same. She get 3 likes
Another wants to keep it to 5€ minimum. He gets 2 likes
Do we really need 3 levels to know which proposal has won?
We have to be efficient: Say how you see it, with a short argumentation,
or "like" someone's proposal and we should know directly the voting.
There will be a time limit and the one who start it has to moderate it.
When there is a lot of discussion around, then it can be placed into the discussion zone, till it can return to decision zone LV1.
When the formalising can be better, just propose and see the likes, make a new thread and restart.
The voting here is no muliplechoise: just Yes or No, (or don't know). This can divide a group. A good voting system have to be multiplechoice so that we can vote someone's idea between 4 others visions.
Maybe this is too simple for a complicated group as the pirates :speaking_head:

Ja daar ben ik volledig mee akkoord, een stem systeem dient meerdere keuzen toe te laten. Daarvoor zijn er binnenkort testen met 3 andere platformen. Deze platformen zijn ook veel verder ontwikkeld kwestie van annoniem te kunnen stemmen, maar vooral ook om resultaten te kunnen onderzoeken op fraude.

Want hier kunnen we ter goeder trouw werken, maar voor een openbaar model is het belangrijk dat vervalsingen van de resultaten niet mogelijk zijn of ten minste toch controleerbaar zijn.