It is my understanding that this has been in discussion for years - and is only be rushed now because everyone it tired of discussing it to death and want to make a decision.
The meetings on IRC were a chance for everyone to speak up related to the survey and its questions/layout. I took everything I was given into account and have others reviewing my work - but I repeat - I was told that we did not want to waste any more time discussing - it was time to make a decision.
I concur. We've been discussing for ages. Now I think is the time for action. I'm sure not everyone will be happy with what we go with ( including myself ). However, at this point, I would rather have something I'm not completely happy with than nothing at all. Kyle http://www.kylehall.info Information Technology Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org ) On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
I certainly sense the urgency in the Koha community to move forward, however, we should not make the same mistake which brings us to this urgency in the first place. A party acting with too little consultation has left us with the problem which we are now facing. We cannot solve that problem by replacing one unilateral process with another.
It is my understanding that this has been in discussion for years - and is only be rushed now because everyone it tired of discussing it to death and want to make a decision.
Ultimately, much activity of the Koha community needs to be delegated to representatives through a democratic process so that not every decision is taken by the entire electorate. Some basic questions will always need a vote of the entire electorate.
If the design of previous ballots had not been so confused even given the difficulty of designing questions so that they are both well understood and neutral, then I might have less concern. However, we have adopted no formal process for good ballot design which might constrain mistakes such as the ones which we have had and almost had on recent ballots. Designing ballots well can be tricky and the only criticism I make of those who have designed recent ballots is not consulting widely enough about their design.
The meetings on IRC were a chance for everyone to speak up related to the survey and its questions/layout. I took everything I was given into account and have others reviewing my work - but I repeat - I was told that we did not want to waste any more time discussing - it was time to make a decision.
The questions at issue in the foundation forming poll are not especially contentious but the process is of vital importance.
1. FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF BALLOT DESIGN.
Ballot design is so vital to any democratic process that it should not start with a small committee with no popular mandate for the task. How ballot questions are put naturally effects the outcome of any poll. Failing to make the ballot design process democratic at the beginning undermines the legitimacy and support being sought through an otherwise democratic election process.
Leaving ballot design to a small committee alone, especially when the whole electorate has not had an opportunity to choose the ballot design committee or representatives understood to be charged with forming a ballot design committee is a great mistake. If the whole electorate chooses a ballot design committee or representatives who's positions are understood to include appointing a ballot design committee, then the process could be demonstrably to be democratic. However, this has not happened.
2. DEMOCRACY AND EFFICIENCY.
Open democratic consideration of questions is not intended to be a maximally efficient process. Open democratic consideration of questions is intended to be a fair process which consults those affected by questions at issue.
There is something less efficient than democracy. A poll in which one is uncertain of the meaning of the results because we are uncertain whether the questions were well understood is less efficient than a democratic process where the questions have at least been reasonably considered in advance by those who are being asked to answer them in a ballot. Racing ahead with a closed ballot drafting process will be liable to retard progress afterwards, not advance it.
3. BALLOT CONSULTATION PROCESS.
You make the presumption that having general comment on the drafting of the ballot would be an unreasonable and interminable process. Yet you have not asked how one might propose to conduct such a process.
Start a thread on final ballot drafting in the Koha list with some main subject tag that may branch with variant subtopics. Post the first draft which your committee proposes and then give people a definite time limit in which to comment. Seven days may be a good time limit for the comment period and I would not suggest that the design issues are so problematic that any more than fourteen days should be set as the time limit. Try to post any revised drafts from the ballot design committee in the middle of the time period. The ballot committee members should certainly comment themselves.
[I have several suggestions for the ballot upon which I am working.]
After the comment time period has expired, then have the ballot committee produce a final version on which we will all vote. Even if the comments do not produce any changes in the final ballot produced by the ballot committee, it will have given the electorate a genuine opportunity to participate in how the poll is conducted.
There is nothing so vitally threatening to the Koha community that it will cease to exist if we take a week of additional time to have open participation in drafting a ballot on which everyone is being asked to vote.
There will necessarily be many ad hoc legacy processes which will persist until we have the time to consider and introduce more formal structures in those areas where more formal structures are actually needed. We should not start by undermining the popular voice in how a popular vote is conducted.
4. COROLLARY VOTING ISSUES.
In addition to ballot design, there are other issues about how what procedure is used when there is no absolute majority on a question which can have only one choice. We should no what will be done before the vote has taken place and not be choosing a method afterwords when the question arises.
The aim should be to maximise voter preferences and not eliminate preferences and choice with oversimplification. Ranked ballots allow sophisticated voting preference analysis to determine outcomes with a simple ballot but people need to understand the process.
See "Preferential voting", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting ; and other related articles such as "Condorcet method", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method , and "Schulze method" , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method in Wikipedia. Several software projects use the Schulze method and variations on it.
4. ACTUAL EFFECT.
I will explain in another thread thread that a Koha foundation cannot govern the development process in free software project because it would not be free software in such a case. However, popular vote should be able to decide key questions in areas in which people give it the resources, such as trademarks, internet domain names, and whatever else people contribute over which a Koha foundation could exercise control and use to the benefit of everyone.
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 22:10, Nicole Engard wrote:
Thomas,
This request - while I understand where it's coming from - is a bit unreasonable. If I were to submit the poll for review by everyone then we'd never get the official poll up and answered and move forward. That said, I am not working on the poll alone, there are several people helping me make all of the changes that were requested before.
Thanks Nicole
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
Nicole,
Please be certain to submit your draft of the final survey to the koha mailing list with ample time for public comment, correction, and amendment before it would go live. All Koha community ballots should be a matter of public discussion.
I raised the issue in more detail with reasons in an earlier message in this thread which you may not have yet had the opportunity to read while busy at the conference which you have been attending. See http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2009-October/020612.html .
Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Sun, October 11, 2009 13:58, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have been out of town, but I will get the final survey up early next week and we will see where the community stands and make a final decision and move forward with the plan to have a foundation behind Koha.
[...]
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha