Loomio

More group settings and change them in a democratic way

QG Quentin Grimaud Public Seen by 43

I would like that group members would be able to create special proposals, which would modify the rules of the group.

In group settings, we could add (this is largely inspired from liquidfeedback):

For proposals:

  • Checkbox to enable/disable forced closing date, so that the proposer can't choose it. And set the Value of the time span for the mandatory closing date if previous box is checked, e.g. x days

  • enable/disable a pre-defined set of rules for the outcome of a vote:
    -- value of needed quorum of participants (absolute value or in % of the number of members in the groups), so that the vote does not count if this quorum is not satisfied
    -- enable/disable the "block" vote and set its meaning:
    --- one block vote is enough to end the proposal and set it as failed
    --- count block votes the same way as "against" votes (so they would just tell something about the future participation of the member in the group)
    -- minimum ratio of "yes" divided by [ "yes" + "no" + "block" ] that should be obtained at the end of the vote to consider it as successful or not. e.g.: 0.5, 0.8.

For special roles:
- moderator, who is the only one who can create proposals based on what people said in the conversation.
- administrator, like now
Members could create special proposals to ask for adddding/removing a given role to/from a given member. Members could create some other special proposals where any member can add itself to a list, and if the proposal is successful, one member of the list would be picked at random and would be granted moderator or administrator role.

CT

Chris Taklis Thu 28 Nov 2013 2:19PM

For the most i agree...

But

— one block vote is enough to end the proposal and set it as failed

it is a really bad idea because all the time someone uses block because don't like something and not just the no button. That means nothing will go forward if this come true.

and

Members could create special proposals to ask for adddding/removing a given role to/from a given member. Members could create some other special proposals where any member can add itself to a list, and if the proposal is successful, one member of the list would be picked at random and would be granted moderator or administrator role.

you can just create a discussion and put a proposal if someone wants to be moderator/administrator or to remove someone from the role.

AI

Alanna Irving Thu 28 Nov 2013 10:49PM

Thanks for thinking this through so thoroughly @quentingrimaud ! A lot of good thinking in there. I'd like to go through i point by point.

I think a lot of your ideas and quite good, but actually most of them can be implemented simply by agreeing in your group about how to use Loomio, and might not need any changes to the software itself. I call these kinds of features "cultural technology" and as a rule, we try to keep the Loomio software as simple as possible so groups can apply all different kinds of cultural technology in order to use it the best way for their group.

Checkbox to enable/disable forced closing date, so that the proposer can’t choose it. And set the Value of the time span for the mandatory closing date if previous box is checked, e.g. x days

The group can just agree what the protocol is around closing dates, like what the default number of days in, and under what circumstance that should be varied. If someone other than the proposer needs to decide the date, they can just state what it should be and the proposer sets it to that.

enable/disable a pre-defined set of rules for the outcome of a vote: value of needed quorum of participants (absolute value or in % of the number of members in the groups), so that the vote does not count if this quorum is not satisfied

The group can just agree on this number... Loomio shows you the % of participants who have participated. If it doesn't hit the number your group has agreed to, the proposal isn't considered passed by the group. You can specify this in the "outcome" field.

enable/disable the “block” vote and set its meaning: one block vote is enough to end the proposal and set it as failed, count block votes the same way as “against” votes (so they would just tell something about the future participation of the member in the group), minimum ratio of “yes” divided by [ “yes” + “no” + “block” ] that should be obtained at the end of the vote to consider it as successful or not. e.g.: 0.5, 0.8.

These are all protocols the group can agree to follow. For example, in many groups I am a part of, one block means the proposal will definitely not pass. In other groups, this is not the case. If you want to redefine what "block" means in your group, you are free to do so. You can just have a discussion about it and agree the definition. The same goes for yes/no ratios, and what they need to be for a proposal to go through. Often times it's quite complex because different people in the group have different levels of stakeholding, meaning one person's no has a different meaning to the group than another person's no.

moderator, who is the only one who can create proposals based on what people said in the conversation.

Just agree in your group that only certain people start proposals, and follow that rule.

Members could create special proposals to ask for adddding/removing a given role to/from a given member. Members could create some other special proposals where any member can add itself to a list, and if the proposal is successful, one member of the list would be picked at random and would be granted moderator or administrator role.

It would be quite easy to just use proposals to do this now. I don't see a need for "special" proposals.

RDB

Richard D. Bartlett Fri 29 Nov 2013 3:24AM

Yep, I agree with Alanna, but I would make an additional point: if you find yourself following these behaviour patterns in your group and they prove to be really useful, that could be used as a good argument for a new feature :)

P

PauKokura Fri 29 Nov 2013 8:48AM

I totally agree @alanna and like the term “cultural technology”.

To define how decissions are taken (how results are considered legitime) is something every group has to consider in first place (virtual and physical ones). Software needs to remain open to experiment democracy in different ways, included non-invented-yet ones.

For example, I do not consider democratic to take a decission that afects all the group if there is just one "no" or if there are people in the group without the rights to make a proposal. In my opinion, everything else than total consensus is a majority dictatorship. (Specially talking about small groups, not necessary in national politics) That is the reason why in loomio I can change my position to "block" if there is a "no" (or if participation is lower than what we previously agreed etc), and I feel specially responsible to do that if it was my own proposal.

In my group I'm doing this via a first proposal called "protocols of decission and participation" https://www.loomio.org/discussions/9457

Maybe I would consider unlimited time for some decissions... I've not thought about it enough, but could be useful as a constant way to "mesure the temperature" of some long-term actions that can be activated when/if they reach desired majority/consensus/participation. Something like:
Proposals (no time limit):
- Should we keep relations with this other group?
- Should we strike?
- Is our delegate still confidence for us?

JG

John Graham Wed 11 Dec 2013 4:09AM

@zombilechuck 'protocols of decision and participation' sounds great. Has anyone made a kind of general template or menu for that kind of thing?

Presbyterians run on a 'book of order' (at least sitting in an office somewhere)
Quakers have much of this kind of material included in their books of collected wisdom, often on the central table in their worship meetings.

P

PauKokura Wed 11 Dec 2013 10:49AM

Is this what you were asking for? I translate the proposal here, FYI. (Google translate based, quickly checked :S I hope it make sense. It is a first proposal (open to everyone) in a new public group, everyone invited, to agree protocols and afterwards create a private subgroup for those who want to become members)


This proposal is pending approval and will be taken in a month, for more people can enter the promoter group and validate or veto the proposed amendments .

Protocols of the CCT :

Organization :

Assembly and horizontal. We do not accept the majority decision as valid , but seek consensus on each decision. The decisions are taken at the virtual assembly and involves members all equal.

Decisions Objective:

The cooperative has a specific purpose : to share many resources and services as we can and agree, whether free or purchased , made ​​by a member or external . If there is not total consensus simply we will not take the decision as a group. Everyone is be free to use or not that resource for their own projects individually .

Types of associates :

Members differ only by the types of tasks they can do, there is no diferent levels of cooperative between them .

  • Consumer does not necessarily know how to design or code , but may participate in other " not technological works ." Can receive support and help of those who know, in order to have a website or pull forward their projects. ( Replace the figure of "client" in a conventional business relationship )

  • Prosumer : Know coding and / or design . Make common tasks agreed by all the cooperative, always in mutual benefit and always ensuring that the cooperative is a space to share work if we did individually will duplicate effort. prosumers can also accept a work by any particular member , reaching an agreement among individual members , as an exchange of services , free or paid or any kind .

  • Federated groups. Are collectives , cooperatives, companies that want to get involved . To offer , as a group , a certain service at least one person in the group should enter the assembly as a prosumer. It is a group decision how many people enter as members (one to make the link , a few, all) and how they are organized internally. Federal group services will be preferent over the " banc de recursos " to promote self-management of the cooperative , if there is consensus in each case.

  • Non members : People who enter freely in the public loomio group but not require access to the assembly (private) group .

Ways to position ( vote ) virtually :

The options are no and block are considered veto (although give space to express total or partial disagreement ) . there is only consensus 100% if the votes are yes or abstention, with unlimited participation , and after the deadline for that decision ( since someone may change mind or veto ) .

Levels of participation :

We give freedom to different levels of participation. Being a virtual assembly , and bearing in mind that there will be members who wish to engage less , because there are just to "enjoy or offer a particular service" , can not ask everyone to actively participate forever. Each one is free to set email notifications to be or not constantly informed, but even those members can receive the proposals and the outcome results of decisions without overwhelming emails with conversation details .

Also non - members can participate in public groups , offering services to " banc de recursos " and making proposals. These are approximate and do not mean final decisions of the cooperative , which are taken only in the subgroup " members assembly " .

JG

John Graham Wed 11 Dec 2013 7:15PM

Thank you for that translation @zombilechuck, it's certainly helpful, and I will be very interested to hear where your specific group gets to with your specific protocols.

In asking for a 'generic template or menu', I was fishing for a tool which is 'agnostic' in the sense that (I think) @alanna has been using it. For example, most of us here assume that democracy is good. What if we suppose that assumption might not be true or helpful for every group?

I've remembered a nice example of an agnostic tool:
The Mediation Abacus
http://www.mediate.com/articles/mosch3.cfm#abacus