What kind of threshold should a vote have to pass before being implemented? Do we really want to be making changes based on a vote that only got one “Aye”? Ten Ayes? Over 50% of the user base?
What kind of vote engagement can we reasonably expect to achieve? Is it actually likely that 50% of the user base will engage with any particular vote? Are there any useful presidents out there?
Who should be responsible for counting the votes when they’re over? Perhaps the OP tallies the votes and edits the post?
Is there an easy test the mods can apply to a tallied vote to allow them to check whether it’s passed? Something that is not open to interpretation and results in a clear directive to make a change?
I’m also kind of testing out this discussion format as a way of generating things to vote on i.e DISCUSSION > POLL > VOTE seems to make sense.
We’ll see :)
I was about to go start a discussion on exactly this issue:
I really believe that we need a discussion step before any vote. Sometimes, an idea isn’t fully fleshed out. Sometimes, there’s an angle almost nobody considered. We do need at least a day or 2 of discussion before something goes to a vote.
EDIT: Also, in regards to the ongoing vote, I think anyone from across the fediverse should be able to start the discussion step, but only a member of this instance can push it to a vote afterwards.
The discussion step is there for the OP to convince people that the move is a beneficial one, opposing views aired, discussed, dug into, and then a new post is put up as a vote where the only comments allowed are “Aye” and “Nay”
Look at this “vote”, for example. It’s all just discussion. Nobody is actually voting. I think people do agree with this format instinctively, it just hasn’t been set up yet.
The idea of opening the floor for discussion to everyone is interesting but I think that sort of means we can’t use subscriber count as a way of scoring votes.
My thinking was the subscriber count is a smaller subset of the total user base and will be made up of people who are specifically invested in participating.
What happens if you have subscribers to the Agora who aren’t actually part of the wider shit just works user base and who also can’t vote?
I don’t think we need to overcomplicate that at this step. We could use something like 10-20% of daily active users on the instance or something as the minimum quorum, for example. Low enough to be do-able, high enough to not be 3 dudes voting.
Fair point, I suppose it’ll become obvious if it starts being abused.
You have to filter the count by the instance to find the correct number.
I think a discussion for 3 days that allows anyone to participate followed by 7 days of voting, only by local accounts, makes sense.
Even if I were away for a week, I’d be likely to see the discussion before or the vote after.