Discussion: appropriate length for Loomio threads?

@Kévin

I wrote a whole big thing about Loomio with some options and it just vanished in to thin air, so I'll add this as another negative point to Loomio.

You'll probably find it eventually, in another thread, maybe in another Loomio group (if you're a member of any). This was caused by a bug that was found and fixed almost as soon as it was reported. So while I had the same reaction to it as you when I first noticed it, the speed of the bug triage and fix is worth noting as a positive for Loomio. Many platforms wouldn't respond as quickly, if at all.

I too think that Loomio is unwieldy, and the platform fragmentation that has arisen organically with social.coop confusing. Also, social.coop may have grown too big to be easily manageable, given that only small fraction of the members are actively involved. Perhaps the Fediverse would be stronger and better as a collection of many small instances that are closer in size to the Dunbar number. Though I've never used Discourse, it would be worth trying if the general consensus is that it would better serve the community needs.

I would strongly encourage having discussions at the circle or group level where joint statement or proposals are created and presented for the wider co-op members to sign on to or group up and create their own. I believe this would raise the quality and efficiency of debate and save everyone time.

We are used to free-for-all discussions on modern day social media platforms, but those platforms aren’t designed for democratic consensus making, which I think works best in small groups with statement writing (as you know loomio has a groups feature). I mean, there’s only so many sides of the threads.net debate (although there may be many factors to consider). Was it truly useful and necessary for everyone to share their position when many were saying the same thing? We don’t have to ban co-op wide discussions, but when they get long, I think that should be a signal to group up and create joint statements.

If discussion happens at the circle level and two opposing groups form, they could create joint statements that put forward their main arguments and then create rebuttal statements to responde to the core positions of the opposing group.

I also use and like Discourse, and would be happy to move discussions there and use loomio for voting. But I think 400-post discussions are just too long to be useful for our co-op and mission or anyone’s, for that matter. See my other comment recommending the solution is moving to circle or group discussions and statement writing.

@Matt S - matts

I don't necessarily disagree, but I do think the 400-post discussion in particular could have been usefully split up into about three separate discussions. I had a sinking feeling when I added my proposal to the same thread and in retrospect I wonder if I should have just started a new thread, even though the proposal was on topic.

If we do want co-op wide discussions to remain a core way for us to relate, I think we would be wise to have a more formal or guided process for initiating the discussion.

Perhaps require the use of a template that includes guiding questions to get to the core of the discussion like why it’s important, what’s at stake, and obvious rebuttals.

maybe recommend the discussion starter (or a discussion moderator or committee of moderators) to edit the original post and add a distillation of the main/strongest arguments for and against said proposal.

Again, I prefer a circle/group-based discussion framework (see my other comment), but open discussions can be fruitful with the right process.

For me a key issue is just how many people from social coop are actually on Loomio. Whatever the pros and cons of Loomio or alternatives or thread lengths etc it seems to me a lot of social coop people are not on it in the first place, not great in general but especially not great for a coop democracy instance. Excuse me if I've got this wrong, but I think I saw the numbers for social coop on loomio for the instance were not as high as you would like. I wonder if there is something we can do about this.

@Luke

Thanks for bringing this up. Lack of engagement and voting (whether by choice or because the process is challenging or confusing) definitely presents a challenge for genuinely democratic process.

It's been off my radar for a while, but it's definitely an important consideration.

Hi there. I'm the developer of Loomio.

I'm sorry it's cracking at the 400 or so comment level - I really appreciate social.coop giving Loomio a good thrashing - Unlike discourse we currently are just 1 developer and this group is probably our biggest and most active group.

I've made a bunch of small changes already after joining the group and seeing some of the issues. Particularly around displaying long poll options.

My dream is that Loomio is scalable to many thousands of comments, and I really think that we can improve with a bit of time, feedback and work.

I'm thinking about a couple of approaches.

1. Default to "newest first" view for threads, you could try this out before I make any changes.

2. Modify the thread page so that previously read comments are collapsed behind 'load more', and disable the autoload function in these cases (so it is click to load more). Show only new comments and their parents. This should mean that large threads remain quite tidy if you're an active user. Auto-scolling on load, and auto-loading can exhibit terrible feedback loops and poor performance - particularly on mobile... they work well for some cases, but clearly not these ones.

3. Show a floating nav bar, which allows you to jump to the end, start, unread and latest comments. This would help mobile users navigate more easily.

Thoughts?

@Robert Guthrie

Thank you for chiming in. I think the second option sounds fantastic, with the caveat that I think there really needs to be a way to search through a thread for keywords. Currently, the browser's search function works okay, right up until we start to hit the point of infinite-scroll, and then you can't reliably find anything.

I'm interested to hear that infinite scroll creates problems on mobile, because I only use desktop, and find that infinite scroll is the bane of my existence, nearly everwhere that I encounter it. I'd assumed that the reason it was ubiquitous was because it does nice things for the smartphone experience. I'd love to be able to get away from it.

I'm not sure that I understand the first option you describe. Would this simply invert the order of the thread, or would it break subthread structure as well? There needs to be an intuitive way of understanding the context that a comment is intended for.

On the third option, it isn't clear to me how the experience of a floating nav bar would differ from the current navigation bar on the right.