[Koha] First things first for a Koha foundation

Tue Oct 13 01:18:30 NZDT 2009

> 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist at 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 at 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 at lists.katipo.co.nz
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>