Merges seem to go ignored. An option to accept a merge, which would then allow all proposed authors to edit and write policy proposals together, would create a better evolving system on the forum.
Merges should be able to be rejected, if even one of the authors rejects the merge, that merge proposal should fail, and another should have to be made.
Merges should require that all accepting authors finish the editing process together, the merged policy proposal should not be posted until each author has finished and clicked āCreate Policyā.
Therefore, if three different users are included in a proposed policy merge, during the editing process the post should appear in the draft section of each authorās profile page, and the ā+ Create Policyā button should have a 1/3 displayed when one of the authors finishes.
Each author should be able to make suggested edits on the other authorās text, but not direct editing of another personās work.
This would allow merges to be useful, instead of dead suggestion box posts.
Agreed. With 12,000 + policy suggestions to date, collaboration (and the merging of proposals) between authors should be enthusiastically encouraged and supported. How else are we going to develop comprehensive policies with enough widespread support to inspire others, and to motivate our legislators to present them in Congress.
Also, I think we need to begin breaking into distinct coalitions in order to focus more specifically on those priorities we feel most motivated to develop into working policy proposals.
And, through the establishment of said coalitions, we could begin organizing some form of representation for a General Assembly as you mentioned here:
I agree that merges are important; thereās a pretty bad signal-to-noise ratio at present.
I think that there should be 3 ways to merge policies:
A policy author sees a duplicate of one of their policies. They DM the other policy author and, if accepted, they merge with no interaction from moderators
Bystanders aggregate policies and a mod approves the merge request. All policy authors are notified by DM and allowed to opt-out if they think their policy is different enough
Mods personally aggregate duplicate policies, automatically DMing authors for approval
Hi Ethan,
Perhaps my terminology is unclear or misleading. Iām not thinking of coalitions in āpartisanā configurations, but in alliances of interestsā¦and not in terms of voting blocks.
Coalition representatives would be spokespersons at the General Assembly conveying the ideas and interests of the coalition to the wider body. Any voting would be made by the individuals of the body politic at-large.
Coalitions of ācollaborationā and support for the development of policies of mutual interest that then go to the wider body for discussion and decision-making.
Maybe āinterest groupsā is better terminology?
I might also be misunderstanding your use of the term āGeneral Assemblyā. Maybe you could describe how you see that being structured?
While this works on a state level, and federal level with representatives of interets, Iād like to continue to have control of my own direct representation.
While i see it would limit the size of the GA, it would also by nature, create 'elections and factions.
The āinterest groupsā need to be unfounded short term individual interest in a policy/movement.
Yet while I disagree, it might be better run on a representative format than a direct democracy format.
My vote is for a hybrid between the two, whereas the ārepresentativeā controls the quorum size and the percentage of votes necessary to pass a proposal or measureā¦and every citizen has the right to vote on every piece of the legislation.
The representative is regulated by a āconstitutionā and would need to disclose why he/she has set the quorum-pecentage (Q-%) at a particular level citing, in detail, the specific constraints of the constitution they implemented in their decision.
If the proposal had a large budget which could develop into significant cost overruns e.g., the Q-% would be set higher.
If it were a measure with a low potential impact, like changing the name of some Federal building for instance, it would be set much lower.
In a Direct Democracy not every citizen is going to want to vote on every piece of legislation. And, in a traditional Representative Democracy (as we are all too aware of these days), we run the risk of consolidated power morphing into an Oligarchy.
In my mind, there needs to be some way of adjusting the requisite support necessary to pass legislation in order to facilitate the reasonable development of a democracy. The representative would be vested with the power to regulate the electorate in such manner.
This gives every citizen the right to vote on every proposal (Direct Democracy), but eliminates the possibility of tyranny by the majority as constrained in a republic (Representative Democracy)ā¦best of both worlds!
Obviously, there would need to be some capacity to recall the representative should it be discovered they were colluding with vested interests - some judicial constraint that could be easily employed by the will of the people, when necessary.
Of course this is only in terms of the forum, I wasnāt discussing actual government construction.
Personally I think establishing a forum Constitution for the sake of site representatives in a forum voting system is a bit overkill, and subvertive of our actual government.
Both this thread, about merges, and the GA thread, are about establishing a better voice for the forum.
I am not in support of a physical General Assembly, our Constitutional Republic which functions on a multi-layered representative autonomy system (local ā County ā State ā federal) Your real life General Assembly is your township, or your State government.
My suggestions where purely for forum organization and advancement of supported policy proposals for proper communication of what the majority of forum user support is.
I understand. Iām just extrapolating to a larger scale with some (perhaps naive), hope that this platform could lead to some level of democratic participation at that level. I have no idea where this forum is headed. Seems to be stuck at the moment in some sort of leadership limbo. Oh well.
Meanwhile, Iād love to hear how you imagine this forum would set up a GA as youāre imagining it.
Any ideas are welcome! My only concern was with the over complication of the already simple voting process on the forum-while keeping the āanyone joinsā feel.
Having the @moderators communicate with users on a set of guidelines that GA reps. would have to follow in order to vote would function in a āconstitutionalā way.
My fear is that the selection of āGeneral Assembly Reps.ā would take unnecessary time away from the point of this forum.
Since the āregularā badge seems reserved for policy contributors and moderators, I would like to see a new badge for inbetween āmemberā and āregularā which functions specifically to verify the needed trust level to vote in the GA, rather than a forum elected rep.
Verification through activity, maybe plus another level that we see from other sites/apps.
ID
Biometrics
Phone #
Email
Otherwise it would work how I stated on the og post. Highest popularity posts would be voted on whether to add the proposal to a list of āforum supported policiesā and votes would be cast by verified users. The ability to repeal or to amend previously voted on policies needs to be added and needs to function the same as a policy merge function. Multiple authors editing and accepting the reconstruction of their policy, to which passes back to the forum categories to be voted on again.
A workaround Iāve just figured out is to add links as a reference in proposals.
Since we can link to other proposals, as well link directly to specific comments, we do have creative ways to combine the efforts of many into a cohesive body of a proposal without relying upon merges, per se.
As an example, Iāve linked to my own comments on a policy proposal, as Iāve come across the character limitation. (Body is limited to 32000 characters). Check out my PATA proposal as an example to see what I mean.
I can submit that the direct ability to edit together or to add a literal form of merging policy is not a necessary or immediate function that the forum requires.
You definately shine as an example of combined support, reference of proposal solution, and collaboration. Honestly my GA proposal is more important to me. Or something in the ballpark of āmoving votes forwardā.
I have lots of things I want to support-yet, limited by the amount of votes I can cast I must prioritize what I personally want to see from legislature.
The ability to organize, conglomerate, and āpassā the most relevant/supported versions of policy proposals, prevent the āI/meā mentality of the forum, prevent stack up of repeat proposals, and properly display a concise voice of support is what I see as an issue.
I was working on a better version of my article, including your policy suggestions from the comments, but sadly the character limit dashed my motivations hah.
I was working on a better version of my article, including your policy suggestions from the comments, but sadly the character limit dashed my motivations hah.
But I agree with you that there is room for improvement from a UI/UX perspective concerning Discourse as it relates to the needs of the user base within Policies for the People, so I hope that my suggestion to engage with the programmers in the Discourse forum proves useful.
Agreed! This is where my help ends, as I have no direct experience with programming. But I think there are several forum based sites that the programmers of this forum need to take inspiration from or collaboration with. Sites like Discourse or Discord.
Loomio.org is an interesting platform for group decisionmaking and structuring collaboration in a large organization. I think you can plug it into Discourse, or visa versa. Hmmmā¦
Iām not a programmer either, Nathan. I donāt imagine it would be difficult though for P4P to find someone with the requisite skill and experience to add in a few new features. Though I could be mistaken about that.
I think first of all, for me anyway, I need to have some sense that there is somebody behind the wheel who has, or is open to, a similar vision for further developing P4P.
Weāll see. Iām still thinking about how to structure an email to the moderator.
I agree, I have submitted Merge Proposals and nothing indicates the Merge is accepted. My last Merge is listed under Merge Proposals but there is no way to Vote for or like the Merged Proposals
There is no Vote Box or an indicator showing Votes are being aggregated or totaled in some fashion. I was notified the āProposalā was accepted but nothing from the users whose Proposals were supposedly Merged. I left messages with different Moderators but have not heard back. Let me know if anyone responds with an answer to these issues please. Fred Walker
