long term design notes

I don't suppose you've got a tl;dr version...?

Ah, no. Part of its point is addressing the way lots of things interact. But it should hopefully be both fairly awesome and easy to read.

Man there are some awesome points in here, there's no way I'm going to be able to comment on them all so I'll just give my 2c on the ones I'm most passionate about.

I do feel like some of these features would place constraints on groups where organic process might be more effective? I think any time we're adding a constraint it has to be as a guideline rather than a formal rule so that groups can agree on their own rules if they need them.

If there isn't complete buy in for a group, the portion that does use it can then take their consensus on a decision back to the wider group and discuss it further there. I don't think loomio can automatically fix polarisation or factions within a group but even within that context there's still value in going through the motion of attempting to reach a consensus.

For the larger groups, I'd like to just see them participate and work with any issues as they arise.

I really think that having tags and filters would help a lot with larger discussions so they could be filtered down to important/key points.

Some of the features I would really like to see:

1. Importance of proposal
2. Keeping track of participation and who has read a proposal
3. Action to be taken and by who when a proposal closes
4. Tags and filters for discussion history
5. Diffs for proposal history
6. More mediums to engage in a discussion, particularly interested in how loomio could be used alongside an in person meeting

@Paul cool. the numbering of paragraphs/chunks I gave was so people could refer to them for clarity when commenting... (eg which features placing constraints?)

Love what you've done here Billy and I agree with the vast majority. Most of it reads as affirmation of the feature conversations I've participated in over the past months.

I will say that there are a number of critiques in there that come across sounding more harsh than you probably intend them to. E.g. comments like 'Loomio does not remove barriers to participation' are likely to land with a bit of a clang. When bringing this kind of food for thought to the group, it might pay to consider that there are many minds that have given as much thought to this as yourself.

@Billy yeah sorry replying by number would have been the logical thing to do, the doc was a little over my head in places so I can only really reply in generalisations.

I completely agree that we really do have to make sure the tool encourages more diverse forms of engagement but just want to make sure we don't unintentionally add barriers in the process.

{12?} I know personally I'm quite introverted and for every comment I post I delete like 3 before I actually hit post comment. If there was a feature measuring how useful I am and filtering only useful comments I'd be constantly thinking about it and probably delete even more comments or possibly not comment at all. There's a bit of a danger here of encouraging elitism which can be a huge barrier for engagement.

On that note I should also point out that loomio and the loomio community have done a good job and removing the barrier to participation for introverts.

It did seem like one of the key points in your doc was customization/flexibility anyway so really I'm just agreeing that that is essential in any new features in a really general way.

BTW the numbers I added for features were an attempt to extract some of the ideas in your doc into a code focused format for my geekbrain. If we can isolate what the actual features involved here are and their effect on engagement/participation we could even get a list of goals for a future milestone?

Hi Billy - I have to say the effort you put into your very detailed cognitive walk-through is highly commendable and rich with detail. I need to carve out some time to do justice to the doc and give it a serious read, which I intend to do soon - however I would suggest you give a look at the spread that I am working on as it is a comparative set of features of tools related to Loomio and some of the features you talk about such as "participation-related analytics" have been implemented in tools such as BetterMeans. Bettermeans however is a more trello-like took - so it would be worthwhile for you to take a fly-by across what is already out there to add to your perspective and perhaps even clarify it a bit !

Tx

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Apl9Ou4giZM_dDF0bENWYUw2Q2NYSG1QTG1RUE52OVE#gid=0

[please feel free to edit / add to the spread as it exists]

Nice job Billy... I feel like it will take more time to fully digest all of this. I think many of your ideas will really help Loomio scale up to handle larger groups. I'm wondering how to take the info in this document and make it more accessible though, since I suspect people will struggle to find time to properly absorb it. A workshop maybe?

@Varun yeah had a look at that document before I wrote this one up, Figured I would write up what was in my head to communicate principles before getting into the minutiae of all possible variants

@Alanna if people can't find the time to read a document how will they find time to have me read it to them? :P

Hey Billy, finally got around to reading some of this. You have some very valid ideas. I kind of feel it is alot for people to wade through. If you want engagement on some of these from a wider audience . Breaking this up into topics or features we can talk about individually might be a good way. A great resource either way.

I feel like once we get some filtering/tagging this sub-group will possible become our road map.

Thanks Billy for trying to congeal some of the visionary stuff, it was what I was looking for when trying to understand where loomio is at in the context of consenus building and eDemocracy.

Overall, human consensus building is right up there with the big problems - understanding the origin and nature of the universe, and of life itself. It started long before fire. Thousands of universities have devoted hundreds of years trying to understand its nature. How it happens has defined civilizations, bewildered man.

I recently suggested to our local member of parliament that they should start thinking about using internet tools to assist the democratic process, so that parliamentary representatives get a better sense of what the community thinks/wants, and so their cacaus gets a better sense of what the MPs want, to provide better input/feedback to decision & law makers. Its tools like Loomio which may eventually facilitate this. But first there are many other diverse organizations and associations which could benefit from consensus building tools.

I can see that some types of small closed democratic organizations, say like a school board of trustees which have specific issues and time constraints, can immediately start benefiting from Loomio as tool. Each week or month there is a pile of documents to review (letters, submissions & reports, etc.), motions made, consensus reached. Secuirty & privacy of the closed system will be of utmost concern, and with internet based systems getting routinely hacked and manipulated, its hard to understand how the integrity & privacy issues can be adequately addressed. But let me put that issue aside for now.

When looking at almost every other larger population or association, there is the situation where the membership in the organization is not static, the views are not static, any viewpoint is just a snapshot in time of what the participants are expressing. We are talking here about something very fluid, where participants constantly evolve their thnking and viewpoints, where issues may never resolve into a final decision or state. The concensus reaching process is part of a much larger cycle of cause and effect and it will usually take months or years for effects of decisions to be seen, meanwhile consensus is evolving until the effects are acceptable. This is a continuous process. Note: You can start to see some of my systems behaviour background leaking through :)

So I'm looking for some sort of open-ended timeline showing the evolving consenus, a graph, like the current affairs program "worm", graphs which all together look something like stock market prices and indexes. Some "shares" may not gain much traction and fissle out, others will explode with interest & shifts in viewpoint of hundreds or thousands of members everyday.

One of the main issues with "first past the post" or winner takes all schemes, is that they don't represent minority views. The US elections may be the most famous case in point, where 49.9% of the population become a minority. I'm looking for results where the consensus state is a histogram or pie chart, not a pass/fail or for/against, to ease or mitigate the polarization that has been occuring.

Billy and many others in this forum and outside refer to the marginalized, the disenfranched, the introverts & passives. It will be a challenge to come up with ways of representing the collective views of larger communities. A "decision" may need to evolve into something multi-dimensional, timescale at least, but also something representing the support for various options.