This is a public-facing discussion.

In July of last year, we agreed to adopt a Code of Coduct, holding us to a high standard of pleasant and productive online communication and decision-making in formal Pirate Party channels. We also agreed to holding meta-discussion and conflict resolution discussions in a separate forum, for which the Hospitality subgroup was created. This was agreed as a more unifying and mutually-beneficial solution to the two obvious alternatives:
* responding to low quality commentary (eg personal attacks and repetition of arguments based on logical fallacies) by voting the offending member off the island, which would most likely lead to the marginalization of minority views or viscous faction wars
* discussions of practical matters becoming bogged down in personal comments and/or hijacked by meta-discussion, to the exclusion of the actual topic under discussion, making any kind of online decision-making slow and frustrating, if not utterly impossible

Since we adopted Loomio as a decision-making platform for the Board, and then for the membership as a whole, we have had a number of successes using our Loomio group to make decisions about organising, and specific actions to be taken to improve our infrastructure. Sadly, policy discussions have proven to be a tougher nut to crack.

Formulating evidence-based policy requires us to behave just as we would if we were journalists writing for popular science magazines like New Scientist. Such writers are not specialists in every scientific field they write about, and they are not required to be. What they are required to do is to articulate very clearly what truth claims are being made and why, and provide credible references to back up these claims, such as the results of cited studies, or quotes from interviews with specialists. Such references are not the final world on the topic, even when the researcher or organisation referenced is highly respected. Instead, they form part of an ongoing conversation and knowledge quest.

As well as our general knowledges and specialist knowledges, we each come to the policy table with our own biases and assumptions, which a robust, evidence-based discussion will sometimes show to be either incomplete or utterly wrong. Remaining calm and respectful, even when we feel like self-evident truths about the nature of the world and humanity are being brought into question, requires immense intellectual courage, and above all, a commitment to discovering truth, even when that truth contradicts our beliefs. The format we use to carry out policy development can either encourage and support members to exercise this intellectual courage, or push them towards defending their biases and assumptions come hell or high water.

In order to improve the quality of our policy discussions, I would like to offer some alternatives to the way we have been trying to develop policy so far.

In-person policy development

Policy discussions are a face-to-face activity. Local branches come to their own policy consensus, and send delegates to participate in policy conferences to decide policy at the party level. This is the method the Greens use, and my understanding is that the number of delegates each local group sends to the policy conference, is proportional to the number of paid-up members their group represents.

Potential benefits to this approach:

• face-to-face meetings are less vulnerable to trolling and flaming (whether intentional or not) than a text-based online forum
• any personal and/or ideological conflicts that arise are easier to deal with in person, in the local group, than in a party-level, online forum
• it shifts our focus of activity as members away from making sure our opinions are well represented on Loomio, and towards ensuring we are part of a local group that meets regularly and is able to come to consensus on policy
• if the number of delegates each local group gets in the policy conference is proportionate to their local membership, this creates a healthy motivation to spend time recruiting new members and growing the local groups

Draft-based policy development:

In order to start a thread in the Policy Incubator, a member must first draft a policy statement (on a PiratePad, or the party wiki?), including a bullet list of recommendations, a full explanation of the reasoning behind them, and references to relevant evidence. Modifying this draft policy then becomes the focus of discussion in the thread. Any other member who wishes to participate in that thread must first publish a modified version of the original draft, providing their own bullet list of recommendations, and their own reasoning and references, but also including all the references in the original, and addressing all the reasoning in the original. Stating that they agree 100% with an existing version of the draft would be acceptable, but their comments in the thread must reflect that, and if they wish to diverge, they must produce their own draft. Proposals in the Policy Incubator are limited to proposing that draft X or Y be adopted as party policy.

Potential benefits to this approach:

• the process produces detailed, reasoned policy drafts, not just debates that can easily become circular and/or polarizing
• members are encouraged to do some serious research, clarify their own thinking, and present both in a coherent way, before opening up potentially contentious discussions on new topics
• the requirement to present (or endorse) a draft before commenting is likely to slow down the process, and limit it to those who are willing to put in serious drafting effort, reducing the number of frivolous, knee-jerk, or provocative comments in policy threads
• making all policy proposals a test of consensus on a draft prevents the proposal engine being misused in attempts to close down discussion or limit the range of things that can be investigated and discussed

In-person policy drafting

This approach attempts to combine the best aspects of both the above methods, in that local groups meet to discuss policy, and collaborate on a draft policy document, which is then presented by the group's delegate(s) using the Policy Incubator. The delegates from other local groups would then raise the topic at their next meeting for discussion, and if the group agrees they want to be part of development of that policy, they would come up with a modification (or endorsement) of the draft to present in the Policy Incubator. Delegates could use Mumble meetings and/or a face-to-face meeting as the "policy conference", or a policy draft could become formal policy if a proposal to that effect in the Policy Incubator achieved unanimous consensus (or supermajority? with what quorum?).