[product idea] Convergence options

DISCLAIMER: This is a musing discussion about things I know are not a priority this quarter, but I'm putting this out there because it's been on my mind and I think it could be useful in the longer term.

---

I have long resisted ideas that I feel could distract, muddy, or try to shortcut the full Loomio consensus decision process, because I know from experience that to get the full value you have to bring a measure of discipline to it and see it through. Simultaneous proposals, multiple-choice polls, etc, all fall into this category.

For complex consent-based decision-making, anything that comes to premature convergence is likely to oppress minority voices, miss diverse viewpoints, create alienation, and leave good ideas on the table. My resistance to deviation from the core Loomio decision-making process came from knowing that won't get people where they need to go.

However, we have heard requests for these types of features for years. Sometimes I would still argue that users are just looking for an easy way out of something that's not really meant to be so easy - but other times it's coming from a very valid desire to do something other than a complex consent-based decision.

Here's my view of the structure of a Loomio discussion and decision, which mirrors important truths about effective group communication, and the divergence/convergence "diamond" that enables collective action.

The thing is, though, there are different types of convergence.

If we made it really clear that there are other types of converge that are not a decision, I think we could make room for other very useful functionality, following the same divergence/convergence flow, while making use of all the architecture of a Loomio group, (such as discussion threads, group memberships, notifications, deadlines, outcomes statements, etc) - without muddying the waters when a group does want to make a real consensus decision.

We already know a fair amount about different kinds of convergence groups find useful... We know some "recipes" that users could call on to use as processes.

Guiding users to pick between types of converge is a powerful signalling system about what kind of convergence it is, and what sort of mandate it has. This can help groups to understand that while a certain kind of convergence could give them useful information, it might not hold definitive power as a conclusion. I imagine we'd still want to have things like outcome statements, to leave room for interpretation of results.

Here are a few convergence processes. I imagine they would show up on the "convergence" side of your Loomio thread, like proposals do now. The first one is our current proposal process.

One thing I took away from the Voting Methods course I did is that there are no good voting methods. They all have flaws and biases built in. We could use the convergence pane to offer some quite creative interfaces that reflect this, such as this design I did for an interface combining Borda Count, Condorcet Count, Approval Voting, Ranked Choice, and Majority Voting.

There's a lot of scope for creative designs in displaying results as well, that make it clear to people that all data is up for interpretation, and they have to view voting as a human process that has values implications.

Combining flexibility about the convergence pane with plugins could open up all kinds of possibilities for groups to design and share useful types of convergence, while keeping it in our structure with things like context, discussion topics, comments, deadlines, outcomes statements, etc - practical things that help convergence be successful and lead to collective action.