View Topic

This is my very rough draft at coming up with a specific consensus system for Wintreath. It's mostly what we're already practicing, but I thought up a few changes that I think might help with record-keeping. I'm not saying this is a proposal, this is just what I came up with and I'm asking for input or help making it better

1) A proposal is posted to the forums
In the past, we've launched proposals on Discord, but I think it's important to start the process on the forums because we have Citizens who aren't on Discord. When a post is made in the governance forum it gets linked on the #governance Discord channel anyways.

A proposal doesn't have to be formal, it could be as simple as "Should we do this?", but the OP must contain all relevant information that Citizens should consider.

2) A period for objections/discussion starts
Usually this is a minimum of one day, but our draft FA policy specifies three days for proposals to open or close relations with other regions. If there are no objections at the end of the period, or if there's unanimous opinion toward an option, then that option will automatically be implemented by unanimous consent. If there is an objection or disagreement, the discussion should turn to addressing concerns raised, with the goal of coming up with a solution that as many people as possible can live with. If it is felt that the issue has been addressed but the objection remains, the process can proceed with a rough consensus. In the event of a rough consensus, the person who raised the objection will have the right to their objection included with the proposal along with their reasoning why they feel it has not been adequately addressed.

During this period, a summary of the discussion should be kept up-to-date on the forum topic, so Citizens across all of Wintreath's platforms can keep up with what's going on and be involved in the discussion. Citizens can also suggest changes to this summary during the discussion if they feel it isn't worded accurately.

3) A final call period (only when not implemented by unanimous consent)
At the end of all discussion (all concerns and objections have been addressed), there will be a final one-day period where the proposal, including modifications if there have been any, is put back up to see if there are any new concerns or objections (ones previously raised cannot be reopened). If there are new objections, repeat step 2 until there are no further objections raised.

Once all objections have been addressed and there is a consensus or rough consensus on the final proposal, the proposal will be implemented.

Since the draft was posted yesterday, Chanku posted a suggestion and asked some questions that I've posted here. The questions were concerning who would decide when there was consensus and whether non-Citizens could request permission to be included in discussions on specific proposals/matters. If you would like to weigh in on this or anything else about the draft, please feel free to. I will aim to post other relevant discussions about this as they happen.

Suggestions

• Chanku suggested replacing pass/passed with implement/implemented gave her the vibe of there being a vote. This was implemented into the draft.

Questions Raised

Chanku: Who determines if there is rough consensus? Is it the person who posted the proposal or some other person? What if there is a disagreement?

Wintermoot: Honestly, at least in the initial period, probably me, which is more or less what I've been doing anyways. At some point there probably does need to be a discussion of if there needs to be a new role, or we can discuss if we feel it's best that the OP handle it.

Chanku: What about non-citizens? If a person who has just joined has an idea to do X, should they necessarily have to obtain citizenship to propose it? What if there's someone who isn't necessarily a Citizen, but has relevant information on a particular matter or proposal being discussed? Do they have to obtain citizenship to participate?

Wintermoot: My preference would be that the discussion itself be limited to Citizens...it's not difficult to become a Citizen, and even if we make the proposed changes it won't be difficult to maintain. If someone has information in sort of a one-off capacity I suppose they could relay it or they could be made a guest. Several guests have access to this channel at the invitation of the RSS (you can see them in the member list coloured in yellow). But that's another process, too. I do think the governance forum is viewable to all, too.

Chanku: Fair enough. It's mostly just things I wanted to bring up and at least consider. At the very least I would include a note saying that an individual could request permission to participate in discussion on a specific proposal or matter.

Wintermoot: What would that process look like? Would there need to be a process to 'confirm' their access to the channel?

Chanku: Not entirely certain tbh. It's more-so just something I was thinking about.

This is my very rough draft at coming up with a specific consensus system for Wintreath. It's mostly what we're already practicing, but I thought up a few changes that I think might help with record-keeping. I'm not saying this is a proposal, this is just what I came up with and I'm asking for input or help making it better

1) A proposal is posted to the forums
In the past, we've launched proposals on Discord, but I think it's important to start the process on the forums because we have Citizens who aren't on Discord. When a post is made in the governance forum it gets linked on the #governance Discord channel anyways.

A proposal doesn't have to be formal, it could be as simple as "Should we do this?", but the OP must contain all relevant information that Citizens should consider.

2) A period for objections/discussion starts
Usually this is a minimum of one day, but our draft FA policy specifies three days for proposals to open or close relations with other regions. If there are no objections at the end of the period, or if there's unanimous opinion toward an option, then that option will automatically be implemented by unanimous consent. If there is an objection or disagreement, the discussion should turn to addressing concerns raised, with the goal of coming up with a solution that as many people as possible can live with. If it is felt that the issue has been addressed but the objection remains, the process can proceed with a rough consensus. In the event of a rough consensus, the person who raised the objection will have the right to their objection included with the proposal along with their reasoning why they feel it has not been adequately addressed.

During this period, a summary of the discussion should be kept up-to-date on the forum topic, so Citizens across all of Wintreath's platforms can keep up with what's going on and be involved in the discussion. Citizens can also suggest changes to this summary during the discussion if they feel it isn't worded accurately.

3) A final call period (only when not implemented by unanimous consent)
At the end of all discussion (all concerns and objections have been addressed), there will be a final one-day period where the proposal, including modifications if there have been any, is put back up to see if there are any new concerns or objections (ones previously raised cannot be reopened). If there are new objections, repeat step 2 until there are no further objections raised.

Once all objections have been addressed and there is a consensus or rough consensus on the final proposal, the proposal will be implemented.

So i aleardy want to make an proposal well There are the hangouts in the discord and i think there should be an history hangout 

It would be about history and would work as any other hangout and history intressted people join ans talk about history and enjoy their time and fun and share their knowlage to others thats what i imagine but it can be more also so i dont know if it gets accepted or not but if it actually gets accepted i dont know how the new hangout would go further 

Since the draft was posted yesterday, Chanku posted a suggestion and asked some questions that I've posted here. The questions were concerning who would decide when there was consensus and whether non-Citizens could request permission to be included in discussions on specific proposals/matters. If you would like to weigh in on this or anything else about the draft, please feel free to. I will aim to post other relevant discussions about this as they happen.

Suggestions

• Chanku suggested replacing pass/passed with implement/implemented gave her the vibe of there being a vote. This was implemented into the draft.

Questions Raised

Chanku: Who determines if there is rough consensus? Is it the person who posted the proposal or some other person? What if there is a disagreement?

Wintermoot: Honestly, at least in the initial period, probably me, which is more or less what I've been doing anyways. At some point there probably does need to be a discussion of if there needs to be a new role, or we can discuss if we feel it's best that the OP handle it.

Chanku: What about non-citizens? If a person who has just joined has an idea to do X, should they necessarily have to obtain citizenship to propose it? What if there's someone who isn't necessarily a Citizen, but has relevant information on a particular matter or proposal being discussed? Do they have to obtain citizenship to participate?

Wintermoot: My preference would be that the discussion itself be limited to Citizens...it's not difficult to become a Citizen, and even if we make the proposed changes it won't be difficult to maintain. If someone has information in sort of a one-off capacity I suppose they could relay it or they could be made a guest. Several guests have access to this channel at the invitation of the RSS (you can see them in the member list coloured in yellow). But that's another process, too. I do think the governance forum is viewable to all, too.

Chanku: Fair enough. It's mostly just things I wanted to bring up and at least consider. At the very least I would include a note saying that an individual could request permission to participate in discussion on a specific proposal or matter.

Wintermoot: What would that process look like? Would there need to be a process to 'confirm' their access to the channel?

Chanku: Not entirely certain tbh. It's more-so just something I was thinking about.

For who determines consensus, I think that it shouldn't be the one making the proposal, at least not them solely.

To request permission to join in a conversation is kinda unnecessary, they can just apply for citizenship. I think that if someone who is not a citizen wishes to engage in a discussion they can request an extension on the discussion so that consensus is not taken before they can become a citizen and weigh in.

Post by MKTroll on Discord
hi!
i am newbie in your political system

however, i've read your draft on system of decision making - and maybe you will implement the concept of "minority veto" instead of "rough consensus"?

minority veto means that when a certain percentage of active citizens declare their objections even after their concerns were addressed, proposal should not be implemented at all

the percentage maybe as low as 10-20%

for example, during the period of discussion 20 people were online - and if 2-4 objects, the proposal is vetoed.

minority veto can be abused, but i think it's very important in terms of protecting minority rights - moreover, the threshold maybe installed at such level that it prevents use of minority veto by small ill-minded groups (for example, if quarter objects - and i think it's really hard to obtain a quarter of votes to decline proposal)

i know it kinda adds formality - but i really believe that some ground rules must be formal: especially in terms of how we make decisions as community.

what do you think?

A few things about mechanics first: 

Discussions take place over days, with people posting and adding to it when able. It allows for more time for everyone to collect their thoughts, reasonings, arguments, and sources if they have them. A lot fewer people can participate in a discussion that takes place at one set time. You're going to get a lot more people and input if anyone who logs in within a period of a few days can participate than if only those available at one specific time can participate.

Citizens are people who have expressed interest in being involved in the region, which often includes participation in these kinds of governmental discussions, however, citizens are not required to engage with governmental stuff, and many do not. Votes can only be measured by the number of citizens who vote, give input, or otherwise participate.


As for my actual thoughts, I am against formalizing it more then absolutely necessary.
One thing about rigid votes is that they can strip away the value of a discussion. With a vote people will often ignore the discussions which often hold valuable points and only look at the vote. Additionally, in my experience, if an important point gets brought up during a vote it's often difficult to address it in more formal systems. 

Also, informal systems lead to a lot more unanimity. When people have to state their stance in a discussion, rather than just give "for" or "against" as a vote, they're a lot more likely to give some of their their reasoning and engage. If a problem gets brought up in someone's reasoning, then people are going to discuss and seek out a solution to that problem a lot more, and if everyone tries to think of and find a solution, but can't find a solution then people are a lot more likely to agree in going against the initial proposal. People are going to have disagreements and unique opinions on things, which is why we're not trying to go with unanimity. A tiny minority shouldn't be able to lock everyone out if solutions to identified problems have been found and implemented. 


I would recommend reading the discussion on this that took place in an earlier thread (https://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=8190.0) if you haven't already

@Eastern Roman Empire: I'm glad that you're getting involved in things

The hangout system is a different out of character thing...it's meant to provide private spaces to groups who face discrimination and might not be completely comfortable in public channels, such as LGBTQ+ people and furries. That doesn't mean there couldn't be a public history channel. In fact there used to be a channel that covered academic topics, but it was shelved for inactivity. So the best thing you can do is promote history chats and prove there's enough interest in the topic to have a channel.

@MKTroll (thanks for posting this, Dystopia): Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us! I know it can be hard to put yourself out there as a newbie.

What I really like about the rough consensus system is its emphasis on coming to the best solution possible by focusing on objections, but not allowing for things to come to a standstill. Thankfully we've never had this circumstance yet, but if a topic is really contentious and there's no obvious best way forward, I imagine it will be difficult for some people to withdraw an objection no matter how much it's been addressed. Rough consensus is also more resistant to bad-faith efforts to block something. Thankfully again it's never happened here, but I've seen factions import voters from other regions to try to get their way for example. I worry given how easy it is to become a Citizen a minority veto system would be easy for a bad faith effort like that to gum up.

I agree that we can't dismiss views just because they're in the minority, and I hope we'll always try to find something that works for everyone because that's what we want to do. I would just be uncomfortable with giving blocking rights to someone as soon as they became a Citizen...maybe I would be more comfortable with it if it were reserved for people who had proven their good faith over time, but that's another process and formality to determine when someone has done that.

@The Age of Dystopia: Agreed on the Citizenship aspect. It's so easy to become a Citizen, and I don't think that should change.

The hangout system is a different out of character thing...it's meant to provide private spaces to groups who face discrimination and might not be completely comfortable in public channels, such as LGBTQ+ people and furries. That doesn't mean there couldn't be a public history channel. In fact there used to be a channel that covered academic topics, but it was shelved for inactivity. So the best thing you can do is promote history chats and prove there's enough interest in the topic to have a channel.

I would enjoy an academic topic channel, even if it's just me venting whatever I learned in school that day and no one else lol.

For those following here on the forums, I'm posting @Chanku's thoughts from the Discord about non-Citizen participation and the minority veto proposal, along with my own reply:

Just some thoughts on the comments so far, I'm just being a bit lazy and also am just kinda putting down some thoughts here:

For the minority veto, my two main issues with it is that it doesn't really make sense under a consensus based system, in my opinion. As under a Consensus system the goal is to reach a decision everyone can -- at least -- live with, if not outright support. With Rough Consensus, it focuses on responding and handling issues and objections raised without necessarily letting a person to stall process because they aren't getting their way. A Minority Veto System undermines that, and also creates a perverse incentive. That is, it makes those that are opposed to an idea less willing to come up with solutions or accept alternatives and instead just steadfastly refuse and attempt to get others to do so. Furthermore, a Minority Veto would, necessarily, require a more formal way to collecting disapproval, which would likely just be seen as (and treated as) a vote. This isn't necessarily something that would be desirable in the system that's being formulated.

As for the question of non-Citizen Participation I'm not necessarily going to push back on this too hard or anything, but I feel like there's something that's being somewhat overlooked or not entirely considered. While, yes, getting Citizenship is easy, I do still think there should be a way for non-citizens to participate. If we happen to have someone that is here that isn't a citizen, but happens to be knowledgeable on a specific subject or area currently being discussed, I do think they should be able to contribute without necessarily getting Citizenship. I can imagine a situation where a matter is being considered, and someone who happens to be here from another region as an ambassador happens to have important information or be knowledgeable on a subject that would be helpful or otherwise extremely useful, that person may not necessarily want to get Citizenship as they don't want to contribute beyond that.

Additionally, I would argue permitting non-citizen participation would also, likely, lead to more people becoming citizens than if we required citizenship beforehand. As someone that is new,  or here for various reasons, and would otherwise have little interest in becoming a citizen might decide to participate in a particular discussion that interests them, but they still don't really want to be a citizen (this may be because they don't feel like it's for them yet, they're not certain about it yet, etc.). By allowing them to participate in a topic, they would get a feel for how things work and also allows them to feel more invested in the community. This may very well then, lead to them deciding that being a citizen is for them and obtaining it.

I'm not necessarily saying that they have to factor into consensus, but I do think having some avenue of allowing them to participate would be useful.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other on non-Citizen participation. I just want to avoid creating tedious invite or permission request processes.

This channel is only accessible to Citizens and RSS-invited guests, the governance forum is readable by all but only Citizens can post in it, and the RMB is open and post-able to all. So assuming the system is working correctly, non-Citizens can read through what's happening on the forums as it is. The only question is how they would be able to post. They could use the RMB, but it's not my preference unless they're well-known.

We also have to consider which non-Citizens would have this right. Would someone be able to join out of nowhere and be able to participate? Would there be any criteria for who would have standing to participate? Also, would this right apply to all platforms or would restricting it to say the forums suffice? Would allowing them to send their commentary to a facilitator who would post it on the forums for them suffice?

I'm just throwing out options. For me it's hard to say whether this should be a right or not until we have some idea of what it actually involves, but I would prefer it to be as little work for Citizens and for administrators as possible.

I would enjoy an academic topic channel, even if it's just me venting whatever I learned in school that day and no one else lol.

Just to play devil's advocate, what's stopping you from doing so on the channels we already have?

Many times in our region's history people have suggested that if we create a channel for something, people will start chatting about it. All that ultimately came of it are a bunch of channels that were archived for inactivity, including the academic topic channel I mentioned before.