Loomio -> liquid feedback

I would have thought to be a chapter or branch you would need enough members to be incorporated. That is how we set NORML branched back in the day, make them legal entities. It stops fly by night stuff happening. Getting the requisite numbers for incorporation and having secretary, treasurer, chairperson positions is not easy as we haven't managed it yet. :)

@Strypey, @tommyfergusson nailed my point.

As it is a bunch of busy work for a small gain we'd need volunteers to do this, so until then this is a "nice to have" dream rather than an actual decision that can be made.

I've made this point a few times, we need to keep our dreams in check with reality, and not try to behave like a big well resourced party when we can't because we're tiny.

But you do know about the wellington branch being incorporated, don't you, @robueberfeldt ?

I do indeed don't know. Excellent to hear. Though odd to have a branch do it before the national body!

It seems petty to block the creation of a subgroup to discuss issues around candidates out of fear that nobody will use it. Even if that happened (and I think it unlikely) what's the worst that could happen? David raised exactly the same sorts of objection to inviting the membership to use Loomio at all.

@strypey , you make a serious habit of putting the horse before the cart.

Get the local membership in place first!

Perhaps the Wellington region though could have some kind of local membership level of selection first, but for the rest of the country to do so would be quite ridiculous.

As we're small, we really should just keep this all at a country wide level involving everybody rather than fragmenting it down further for no real reason.

As for your other point, I objected to Loomio on the basis of a whole host of other reasons, which I won't be going into here.

Note: By "subgroup" I'm referring to a feature in Loomio. As with the Policy subgroup, every member on Loomio would be a member of that subgroup unless they didn't want to. It's just a way to keep all discussions of a certain type in one place where they can be easily found. If a discussion thead could work through more than one decision at a time, I would just propose having a discussion thead on candidates, but as it stands, this would create a bottleneck.

we really should just keep this all at a country wide level involving everybody

This is exactly what I'm proposing! A Loomio subgroup would allow members to discuss all candidate decisions in one place. This would include party list rankings and candidates in electorates with no formalized chapter.

Objections should go to the full party.

How else do you propose an objection should go to the full party, and a decision made, other than by Loomio?

I suggest to start a new proposal once the current one will be closing in one hour, that is about opening a group for discussing those matters but refrains from suggesting who should have a final saying.
I would happily agree then.

Back to the original matter of this thread:
The fine people of liquidfeedback.org have just released version 3 of LiquidFeedback. I find it very appealing, actually.

Here is the link to a demo instance to have a play with it:
http://dev.liquidfeedback.org/lf3/

Myfirst impression is a much better design - more intuitive and less clunky