Alts to Voting

@danielplaat this is largely how a statement of "no" works in Loomio. We think of it as meaning "I think we can do better". Because Loomio is synchronous, you can't just say "any objections?" and if there aren't any right then move on. You have to have a really clear way to signal a timeframe and give people the chance to get their voice heard - that's exactly what a proposal is for.

I've actually observed some issues with the "any objections" model for in-person meeting - there are all kinds of different communication styles, and that moment only really works for some of them. In in-person consensus, I've often seen someone say "any objections?" and wait like 30 seconds, and then move on.... but sensed a lot of unspoken tension in the room that wasn't getting addressed. For me, doing it on Loomio means everyone can have a fair chance to raise objections and really stop and think about their position.

I suppose that's the case since a proposal is open for as long as needed? I'm not up on all the details I suppose; perhaps then a last call alert? perhaps that's redundant too. does this mean no votes can be changed when a proposal is edited by the proposer?
I suppose groups can create their own process for moving through the steps that exist. Then maybe we can think about features to give many options. That is already going on; but I wanted to put out a statement on the topic.
I know what is meant about asking for concerns as a call for consensus; I personally have the opinion we should work to get away from 'yes' 'no' votes. perhaps a simple wording change then; 'consent' and 'concerns' vs yes and no. since I would imagine a 'no' vote being a stand aside. I'll edit the proposal in a day or two to something like that for debate. I think no is too strong for the feeling its meant to portray.

@daniel, it is going to be exciting seeing you using Loomio. I think you will find that 'expressing your view' using the thumb buttons isn't at all like yes or no, and you can change your mind anytime you like, so it is way different to voting. A key thing to play with will be setting the protocols for the group you are in. How do you want to see these buttons and what way would work best for your group to use them. Have a play and let us know how you get on

@danielplaat to answer your questions...

• Proposals can be open for as long as needed. Proposal creators and group coordinators can also extend the closing date if needed.
• A last call alert is sent by email automatically when a proposal is about to close.
• Proposals cannot be edited by anyone, including the proposer. To make a change, you need to close the proposal and start a new one. This means statements of position never remain on a proposal that's been changed.
• Most groups find the existing Loomio feature set quite adaptable. It's really up to each group to set a culture around what exactly something like a "no" really means in its context.
• We don't call statements of positions "votes" for some very specific reasons. It's not about majority rules, yes or no. Loomio makes it hard to measure simple majority. If there are any no's or block's, most groups will try to work to resolve those concerns. In most groups I am in, a significant number of no's or any blocks mean the proposal fails, even if the vast majority says yes. Again it's up to groups to set their own protocols around this stuff.
• You can change your mind any time up until a proposal closes, and people very often do so. The idea is not to take a snapshot poll of what people think at a given moment, but to work together as a group to air concerns and find solutions that work for everyone. People's thinking evolves in response to other's input.
• I would like to see the labels on the buttons be customisable, so you could change it to "consent" and "concern" if you wanted. This is something we're looking into.

Along the same lines, I don't really understand why the discussion is separate from the proposal. Shouldn't the discussion resolve around the proposal?

@dnephin how would you imagine that working?

I guess I see the proposal as the real root of activity in a decision making process. The discussion and discussion context is really just a forum. If a proposal wanted to, it could link to the relevant forum which instigated the proposal.

I would see the entire discussion removed from the proposal page, and instead have a page with full-text responses (to the proposal). So instead of just saying yes/no/abstain/block, you would add a position (support, accept, challenge, oppose, or disregard) with an argument for that position. These roughly map to yes/no/block, but convey more intent (I could talk more about these, but I'm sure they are a matter for another proposal).

I see a few advantages to this approach.

1. All of the discussion is focused around points in the proposal (if you already agree with a position you can skip ahead to read those that differ from your position). This helps make participation more accessible as more and more people join a discussion, because it reduces the number of responses you need to read to stay involved.

2. As the OP mentioned, you can basically call something complete once all the major challenges and opposition are resolved.

I hand't realize that a proposal can't be changed, this makes it a little more difficult. I kind of see that as a problem .The point of a discussion is to arrive at some proposal that suits everyone, so it can move from proposal to policy. I would think that most proposals would benefit from changes during the decision making process.

Proposals often evolve - it just means closing the current one and starting a new, updated one.

@alanna sure, that is possible, but then you lose all the important discussion that went into shaping that new proposal (even if you don't lose it, but it's not readily available).

Often the reasons behind a decision or proposal are just as important as the decision itself. Later on you can re-evaluate if the decision actually solved the problem it was intended to solve.

It also allows people who are new to the organization to catch up and understand why things are the way they are, without re-proposing the same ideas again and again that have already been rejected, or modified.

@dnephin when you close a proposal, you don't lose it. It stays right there, readily available. One thing I love about complex multi-proposal Loomio discussions is all the context is maintained in one place. I have often gone back and re-opened old discussion for an updated or next-phase decision on changing circumstances.

Are you speaking from actual problems you've experienced in Loomio groups you are a part of, or is this more hypothetical? If it's real, I'd love to hear specific examples. If it's hypothetical, I'd encourage you to use Loomio with real groups and see the opportunity that already exists for the functionality you're describing.

Alanna has a point in that we can't complain or say what we want changed without using it. but mr Nephin builds on what I'm getting at. functionally that already exists aside. I hope to revisit this once I've done something myself.

Perhaps this is the wrong place to bring this up, broadly speaking it fits into the context of an alternative to voting in a Loomio group but heading in a different direction to the current conversation. Forgive me if this is the incorrect place to mention this.

What about discussion boards where the intention is not to create a proposal but to share knowledge/resources?

For example, a co-op business using Loomio could benefit if the work roster was available. They could also have say their merch stocks, daily and long term run sheets, etc. Basically think of anything that a group might use Google Docs or a drop box for.

These aren't things that are voted upon, but its resources that may be relevant to how people vote on a proposition. This could be managed by using Loomio alongside other systems such as Google Docs but in the long run the more integration the better.

Since Loomio is based around the idea of creating consensus, perhaps it could benefit from an area for generating collective knowledge.

@rorytb You say "the more integration the better", and that is a valid opinion, but I think it is contrary to the Loomio design philosophy. I am thinking of the document here: https://www.loomio.org/d/9OxPLb3z/how-the-loomio-community-works and in particular the point where it says "Keep it simple".

The Loomio developers have limited resources/time, and I think the community is best served by focusing on the central purpose of Loomio rather than adding many features that are already done better by other systems.

Hey @rorytb I think it's a good idea :) As a first step I think the group wiki feature would help a lot. Thinking more holistically about the ingredients that go into good group decision making, great shared background info and resources is a big part of it!

@sirwumpus Yeah I completely agree that the developers time is a crucial factor and that the sort of integration I'm talking about would probably be of lower priority because other systems can already do it.

However, I have a different perspective on the "keep it simple" mantra. To me, having those resources in one place is simpler than having them spread out across multiple systems.

@alanna Yes I certainly agree the group wiki is heading in a good direction.