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 :)

  • @nyahlathotepEnglish
    2•1 year ago

    I’m thinking we need a bot to handle all this. Check for quorum, track vote timelines, tally votes after it closes, administer polls, probably other stuff I’m missing

      • @carbon_basedEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        Is there something that handles nuanced option taking? like more than 2 options … like i suggested in a separate comment, systemic consensing?

        • @tcelyEnglish
          1•1 year ago

          We need to construct a vote ballot, then use up voting on the options you approve of.

          This is approval voting and has excellent behaviors compared to most other voting systems

          Ideally, voting would happen in a community that only allows local users to subscribe or vote.

          If that’s not possible in Lemmy, at the moment, something with access to the database could do the checking and report the results, I think.

          • @carbon_basedEnglish
            0•1 year ago

            Actually, i like weighted disapproval voting, because it counteracts mob approval following (better word?) to some extent. People are incentivised to think about how much any option (and there could be silly ones just for the sake of it) would go against their favours. I’d consider it intellectually mature if people could collectively establish such a system. But doesn’t look like it …

            One thing that would be nice to have is a “neutral/abstine” vote. While this can be substituted by commenting, the latter would allow double voting.