Request for Input: Participation Permissions
Alanna Irving
Public
Seen by 373
In response to the feedback here, we've now added a tab to the group setup process called "permissions", which gives you options about participation in your group.
Coordinators can now determine whether group members can invite new members, create subgroups, start discussions, edit the context panel, edit their comments (even after activity has occurred), raise proposals, and vote on proposals.
We hope this offers a range of options to suit the various use cases you shared with us!
original post
We recently updated group privacy settings, which is about who can see what. Then we released an update to options for editing content, which is about who can change what. Now we’d like to discuss participation permissions settings, which is about who can do what.
We’ve received requests for more fine-grained control over:
- who can start proposals
- who can start discussions
- who can state positions (vote on proposals)
- who can comment
There’s a lot of potential here to empower groups who want to use Loomio for consultation and engagement with levels of decision-making stakeholding that are right for their situation. The magic of the Loomio process lies in nudging groups toward more distribution of that stakeholding in decision-making. But sometimes the real power of collaboration is as much about great delegation as it is about inclusion. We want to go for the best of all worlds here and create a featureset to support that.
Right now, you can accomplish various combinations using subgroups and privacy settings. For example, you can have a subgroup including the decision-makers for a certain subject matter, and have their discussions visible to everyone in the main group. People not in the subgroup can see what’s happening, but they won’t be notified of new discussions and proposals, and they can’t comment without being given full membership. We think we can do better.
Here are some examples of permissions people might want:
- All group members can start discussions, but only certain people can start proposals
- All group members can start proposals, but only certain people can state their position (vote) on them
- All group members can make comments and state positions on proposals, but only certain people can start discussions and proposals
- comment-only mode, so people could have input but not start discussions or participate in proposals
So… lots of possibilities here, but also a fair amount of complexity.
If you're in a group that would benefit from more control over the participation permissions, tell us about it. What kind of decisions are you making? What kind of input are you seeking? Who are the decision-makers?
Alanna Irving Wed 25 Jun 2014 12:57AM
@carlscrase I agree... the thing is though that "flexibility" and "simplicity" can be tricky to balance. What would the options look like in your view that would be flexible but also clear and easy to use?
Ian James Wed 25 Jun 2014 3:35AM
I like the idea of keeping as many of the rules as possible in a group's written "bylaws" and as few of them as possible in the code because I'd like to encourage the practice of reading and writing the rules together. Why not allow anyone to do all but a core set of admin/facilitator functions. Let us make mistakes and test the rules as we come up with them organically. It keeps with Loomio's principles of both 1) letting people to do what they do best, and 2) keeping it simple.
Pirate Praveen Wed 25 Jun 2014 7:32AM
We at Pirate Movement of India would benefit. Only permanent members can vote on proposals, but we want everyone to start proposals or comment on it.
Chris Zumbrunn Wed 25 Jun 2014 9:41AM
One thing that would be useful in the kind of organisations and decision making structures I work in, would be to differentiate between binding votes and non-binding votes. We wouldn't want to keep people from participating and stating their position, but we would maybe want to have some members votes be included in a count of "Binding Votes" in addition to the count of "Total Votes".
Chris Zumbrunn Wed 25 Jun 2014 9:47AM
...and as things stand right now, I do not mind having to divvi all that up offline in our heads instead of having it built into the software. Doing it in real live offline has its advantages. Having to configure it in the software might be to rigorous.
Alanna Irving Wed 25 Jun 2014 10:19AM
Thanks for all the comments so far - really useful! Keep them coming. We'd love to hear a variety of use cases.
Ryan Gillespie Wed 25 Jun 2014 4:06PM
The group I coordinate could definitely use the comment-only type membership. We have members that are voting members and those that are not. So some way that we could differentiate would be great. Another thing that could be nice, is if you could invite that comment-only member only to a discussion (or specific discussions), so they can only see discussions appropriate for their input.
Alanna Irving Wed 25 Jun 2014 8:39PM
Hey @ryangillespie - check out the "invite people" link in the top right corner of a discussion. This allows you to invite people on a per-discussion basis. Right now this gives them full participation permissions, but I thought you'd want to know this is an option.
Robert Beck Wed 25 Jun 2014 8:39PM
The group I am considering has two types of members. Both groups could vote, but only one group could block.
Carl Scrase · Wed 25 Jun 2014 12:29AM
I think it is a great idea to have as much flexibility as possible with permissions.