Anonymous decision

Great Block @franciscogeorgeppe!

As I understand it, the way that some people imagine this working would not allow trolls. - Rather a group of trusted users could cast anonymous votes within their group.

There are a lot of ways we could do this, and we definitely don't want a system that encourages bad behaviour.

I think this proposal is a register of interest in identifying different ways it could work.

For most decisions I participate in, I want to know who I am deciding with, so I have the full context.

I agree with @brennannovak though that anonymity is about safety: some decisions have implications for people's physical safety. If safety isn't assured, people won't participate.

@robertguthrie Let us then not called it Anonymous vote and let's make it Secret vote, as when you participate to elections.

Let's recall that putting your real name out there is disproportionately easy for people with privilege, and disproportionately hard for the marginalised (across all kinds of aspects of that). I am very aware of the potential pitfalls of anonymity (people not being held as accountable for their actions) but it can also be a very important a necessary feature, depending on the context.

I hope we can avoid getting bogged down in a superficial version of this debate - it would be endless. Have a looks at the history of the Nym Wars. What can we do here to look deeper, to move this discussion beyond the ground that's been tread over and over? For this to work in Loomio, it's going to have to be an inspired, innovative design.

Brainstorming... what if anonymity could be on a per-comment basis? What if you could blank your name, but opt to provide context about who you are (like gender, age, location, any details relevant to your perspective without compromising your safety)? What if everyone's names were attached as normal, but there was a special round where people could add a comment anonymously? It would be so transformative for a group that thought it was a safe space to hear "I don't feel I can say this normally, but here's how I really feel...." - I think changing Loomio into an anonymous platform totally is not the answer, but creating bubbles of anonymity within a larger discussion or group could be very powerful.

Yep @alanna I've had some conversation with @neilmorris about per-comment anonymity. As we envisaged it, you would have an option on the comment form: "Post as...", where you could put in whatever name you would like to use for that comment. The idea is that the group coordinators could enable that feature on a per-group basis.

That might be an easy place to start to learn about anonymity in the context of Loomio. The question of anonymous participation in decisions is more vexed.

What about an anonymous option for the "ideas" feature? Basically, a contained aspect of the discussion that is anonymous. If people shared controversial options there, others with the privilege to do so may very well champion that perspective in the non-anonymous parts of the process.

Hi @alanna I like that idea - in fact right now I can't think of a reason why new ideas and new proposals need a name attached to them at all.
You'd be able to implement that without affecting any of the other 'who's in the room' functionality, I imagine.

As a groupwork facilitator, I agree with the idea suggested that you may need "bubbles" of anonymity.... In a "normal" face to face environment, you would hopefully be able to create a safer space for people to share openly but you cant get that level of safety online because we are not able to be held as accountable in my view for our various behaviours. For example, can get away with very strong statements without being challenged by a facilitator who might normally say something like: "Hang on, I can see what you've said has affected a few people in the group... I wonder if you could say some more about that so we can understand where that's coming from... because you're obviously affected by this issue". That gives a chance for strong opinions to be let go of, and new understanding and connection develop. Instead, online, people can hold their grudges, opinions etc because they are not given the same opportunity through face to face facilitation and the "light" of the group process to see their own shortcomings. So, anonymity is a needed feature in my view because everyone has the capacity to hide because we are not physically held accountable and that inevitably makes the space less safe. In a sense you would only want to use the feature while naming the reasons for using it as suggested by Alanna Krause, because ideally, being open, honest and feeling safe to contribute should be the direction of online collaboration and an underlying principle of Loomio.

I suppose this topic boils down to describing how, when, by whom and according to what criteria should anonymity or perhaps alternative persona/aliases/nyms be supported as a functional process. There are several dialog and decision processes that legally require some communications to be made anonymously (at least in the US), and leaving aside format requirements, on the merits there are so many situations, topics and group dynamics that are benefited by the appropriate use of anonymity that it is not especially fruitful to debate whether anonymity is ever suitable. Perhaps a more constructive focus would be a) first describing agreed circumstances and scenarios for which this identity feature is most valuable (there are several candidates in the comments already, and quite a few more exist) and based on some agreed anchor use cases then to focus upon b) whether or when Loomio should support such functionality on a roadmap or backlog (or however future capability sets are prioritized, staged and resourced).

Thanks for your astute contributions @steveray and @dazzagreenwood1. Great stuff!

Here's an interesting take on anonymity in the context of a known group of people: https://www.secret.ly

Late entry here, and some interesting thoughts.
I address this concept like this.
1. Have different weights on anonymous inputs/ votes
2. Enabled "verified" people to become anonymous, to address the "speak freely, no judgement" option
3. Have the crowd judge input as "troll" like behaviour or not across the entire loomio community, and if you get several (3) troll votes, you lose your anonymity/ are removed.

Also maybe color code comments that are from anonymous, verified and unverified people.
Eg. A name/ email address is almost as anonymous as the name "anonymous" really... so a verified, bonafide person can be anonymous, with more trust from the crowd.

I love services like "trustcloud.com" for that type of judgement.

I wonder how real anonymity in Loomio groups would work though ... maybe it's because all the groups I am part of here are groups of people I know well in real life, but I suspect that even if I was posting "anonymously" most people would guess who it was because they know me!

But even in online-only type groups where everyone's using pseudonyms, for Loomio to really work people need some knowledge and experience with each other, and deepening those connections often is a foundation for higher quality decisions. With that comes to reality that people will be able to identify your comments even if your name isn't on them.

Also for minority, marginalized people, they'd stand out like a sore thumb by pointing out the important thing they're using anonymity to try to feel safe saying. For example, if I were the only woman in a group and I felt the need to say "this isn't a safe space for women" or "i am being harassed because I am a woman", if I am the only woman there, obviously everyone will know that's me talking! I guess what I am saying is these problems are real and important, but are they really fixed by anonymity?

In the consensus decision making system we use, the default position of any proposal is one of approval (proposer gives a green thumb). Members express concerns about the negative impact on the group that implementing the proposal may have (red thumb). All members seek to find solutions to any concerns raised. Only proposals that have all concerns alleviated (red thumbs become green) are implemented. (there are also options for what to do with unresolved concerns and blocks)
The problem with 'votes' of support seems to be that they can be instrumental in polarising group members into for / against subgroups. Anonymity of members has benefits in enabling more reticent members to air concerns and I would like to see an option for this. (we can work around it in the meantime though).

Thanks for that insight @stewart. In the software we've consciously avoided using the word 'vote' for exactly that reason. Of course, some groups do use Loomio as a voting platform, but we have intentionally set it up to lean more in the direction of consensus-building than majority-ruling :)

That really shows through Richard. I'm just discussing with another member what the 4 icons (green, yellow, salmon (?), red palm) could be interpreted to mean and they blend very well. I think you've done a great job of setting up a platform on which to run different flavours of decision making systems. If I, as a co-ordinator of our process, was able to customise the labels of the icons I imagine that it would enable easier implementation to all our members. Please understand this is a suggestion for a very minor improvement to Loomio. What you have produced is brilliant. Having come to consensus decision making relatively late in life I am excited to see it being made more usable through the power of the internet :o)

Thanks for the kind words @stewart! I totally agree it would be great to have customisable labels for the decision buttons.

As you get familiar with the tool I'm sure you'll have plenty more suggestions for how it could be improved. We have a group especially for that, so do get in and join if you want to share any ideas.

Totally agree that customizable labels would be a great way to extend the flexibility of Loomio! This has come up in multiple conversations, and I'll definitely be doing what I can to feed this into design thinking @stewart :)

On the subject of the NymWars, we have made a rule that only financial members of the NZ Pirate Party can participate in our Loomio group (although most parts of it are publicly visible). However, we do allow members to use a pseudonym instead of their "real" name, so long as they use it consistently. A membership admin checks that the pseudonymous user is a paid-up member before allowing them into the group. The purpose of this is to allow members to speak freely, without their comments being used against them in their workplace, neighbourhood etc.

I agree with Francisco that anonymous users should not be able to post randomly in Loomio groups, but I don't think anyone is proposing that. Rather that once a person has been identified and welcomed into a Loomio group, there could certain situations in which they are allowed to anonymously comment, or take a position on a proposal. As @alanna says, this is not likely to be needed in small groups, or groups where the members know each other in-person, but it is one feature that could be important in helping groups to scale beyond Dunbar's number (about 150 members). For example, many Pirates won't accept using Loomio for electing officers, as they believe in doing so by secret ballot.

I think the Loomio crew are wise to be hesitant to code in features which emerge from the logic of majority-rules and elected representative systems. After all, the main working theory behind Loomio is that online tools can allow consensus and full participation to work on a large scale. If this theory holds, the Pirates don't need elected officers at all because Loomio (or whatever platform) would allow the whole membership to make decisions and action them as a collective. A lot of people remain to be convinced that this is the case though ;)

Why not for the idea one day... Because actualy it's seemed to be too difficult for controling the votes.

Except maybe actualy if the positions are known just after the end of the votes, just after the decision.

Facebook now has a anonymous login feature: https://developers.facebook.com/products/anonymous-login/