Yeah, I’m trying to avoid doing work on my java assignment LOL.
I do see where you are coming from, but this just leads to a endless what if situation.
Yeah I’ve noticed that there have been a number of changes to the poll but with little change in how many people actually voted. I would largely attribute it to active discussions and people researching. But also partly to “I want a more permissive licence to win but my licence is losing, let me change my vote”
I just went to check account creations and we have only had 1 new account created since the poll was posted. So I think we can rest assured that the community is good people.
I do feel I’m not being heard here.
I’m saying ranked choice avoids the endless “what if”. Thats exactly what it is designed to do. Its exactly why its awesome.
I wonder how much help Loomio could be in facilitating decisions like these, as I’ve seen come up a couple times. Not familiar with the software myself, but from what’s been said about it, it could help.
Thank you for the video, its a very good explanation. I was originally going to make the vote a multi choice poll, I can’t quite remember why I didn’t though.
Great and again, I don’t think we need to redo this poll. I’m bringing up issues for the future.
I disagree, I think we have some great options for mitigating this. You checking accounts created after the poll is already an awesome first step: “you must have an account created before the poll started in order to vote” could be a great policy that mitigates the temptation to create a new account for a vote on a topic someone feels very strongly about.
Another could be “you need at least 10 hearts from members who already have voter-status”. I can go make 10 burner accounts, but its a lot harder to make 10 burner accounts, make posts from all of them, and collect 10 hearts for the first one, 9 for the second one (using burner for the 10th), 8 for the third, 7 for the fourth … Etc. AND, thats way less of a “temptation” and more like a well-thought out plot by a bad actor, which I think makes it both less likely to happen, and more likely that the bad actor is eventually caught.
Another mitigation could be requring a phone number.
Whatever the policy is, I think Aux should have an official policy. There is the risk that you looked at the new accounts just now and saw “jeff2,jeff3,jeff4,jeff5”. We should solve that BEFORE it happens (while we are small and do have good people) because once it happens, ad-hoc throwing accounts out is a pretty bad and pretty difficult.
This discussion I think warrents a new thread.
Done.
This is good but I’m not sure how possible it is to implement. Also this risks making things a popularity contest. Though I’m sure most users will have 10 hearts, its more of a problem if we make this more.
This is probably the best solution we could have.
Agreed. But I think its worth exploring and I’m down to roll my sleeves up and try to figure it out. Discourse has badges/achievements for things as I’m sure you know more than I do. I dont know if theres a way to create a custom “voter status” badge, but if there is then it probably wouldn’t be too hard to add this kind of a system. It might even be nice as a plugin for other discourses to use.
Smart call, we have some custom badges already for those who found the forum before it was annouced.
This might make it possible to have a set of “achievements” for a lack of a better word to lock polls behind.
Yeah kinda like how Stack overflow does it.
Yeah I definitely think it should stay low, and/or we should just avoid it an require a phone number. I don’t like requiring a phone number for privacy reasons, but it might be the best most-easy option.
I’ll probably explore this thread topic more later, but for now I’ll wait for others to throw in their two cents.
I really want to avoid phone numbers but maybe 2FA is a good alternative since it makes creating a votable account that bit more of a pain.
Actually I’ve been looking into this! I got some yubikeys recently because I wanted to do website Auth without phone or email, but I wanted banning someone to actually ban them, not just force them make another account.
I specifically wanted more than 2FA; to require that the person need a new physical passkey for each account. I’m 99% sure thats impossible for yubikeys, but keycloak might have that option.
But 2FA is another thing that would add friction
this is a solution i was thinking of well but honestly didn’t have the energy to bring up, so thanks for bring this to everyone’s attention! i had a similar experience with MPL and MIT
Generally I think this is a good discussion to have and some sane suggestions.
But I would like to voice strong opposition to phone requirements for anything. Ever.
Ahem. Sorry, nitpicking a single line of a long sensible thread there. I’ll go over there now.
Been there done that.
Off-topic aside I think it would be cool if we explored some means of alternative voting.
If not all of us at once we could introduce changes in only one SIG at a time and see how it goes.
I know it is still early but taking care of decision-making early could be crucial. Specially now that a lot of important questions are being asked.
Basic polls have mostly worked so far but we’re already encountering some problems with them…
Also, my issues run a bit deeper: we lack some sort of “regulation” on how to make democratic decisions. We’re a few and, I would believe, with good will so things are not getting chaotic or anything similar. I’m aware of the roadmap listing some info about governance but I find it insufficient.
If not yet ready for a full blown constitutional regulation we could work (or ducktape together) a set of provisional project wide rules and/or recommendations regarding those and other matters.
Yup, phone numbers are not happening. Period.
I’m not sure about the title of the post and content of the first pot, but I created a thread to talk about using appropriate software for this very issue Suggestion to consider loomio for decision making
It doesn’t have to be Loomio as suggested in the linked post, but IMO using discourse for making decisions is a surefire way to repeat the way the nixos community makes decisions, which I perceive to be a mistake. Instead of bending discourse to do what need it to do, why not use software made exactly for what we’re trying to do?
Edit: Loomio also supports ranked choice voting.
As far as I’m aware a large amount of people keep suggesting this software including myself. And I think it would be a good place to start.
If we decide to elect the steering committee / bootstrap group (which I recommend that we do), let’s be explicit about wanting to avoid bikeshedding at THIS point (only). I believe there’s a lot of detail that has to be got right about democracy in most circumstances (for example, I think ranked choice is important) but in THIS case there is not going to be much controversy, and I suggest we bite the bullet and get it over with.
U2F/FIDO2 is designed to be unlinkable as a privacy feature. You can set up two accounts with the same website using the same token and the website will not be able to link these together based on the token responses.