Re: 1. Installation of a democratic voting system for the MCF project 2. Ranking system

[email protected] wrote:
> Also i am convinced that we should start to implement 'responsibilities' to certain 
> people, maybe also coming along with 'titles'  ( lol :-) ), but this is just an option.

I think we're definitely a team too short of (active) members to need 
titles.

> 1. Here is my draft for a regulation of a MCF voting system :

As you know we've tried to avoid voting from the start and it worked 
well. We're talking about technical things in MCF, that need rational 
reflections rather than a vague opinion with a restricted number of 
possibilities (or the vote would need to be VERY complex). Also a vote 
(yes or no to /that system/) is the best way to create a schism (french 
translated) when people strongly disagree and think they are right. This 
is also something we want to avoid. We need to convince each other.

> There will be no access to this list via NNTP, so all members have to subscribe to it 
> to be able to participate in the vote.

A forum based voting system is safer. Otherwise there are some free+open 
voting systems out there that are supposed to be reliable (to be used 
_legally_)

> b. A list of 'active' MCF team members should be held. All members on this list, and 
> only them, are allowed to participate in votes.

Define active...
Ingo for example might not be active, but still his technical input is 
worth many of the "active members" (including me) and often more.

> Other people, being not on this list, can vote ( we cant prevent them ), but their votes 
> will not be counted for the end result.

Total waste of time for them. If you're trying to please them, that 
won't work this way...

> c. Every team member can submit a decision for voting to the list. Each vote will run 
> for 1 week. If no more than 3 votes are counted for the vote during this time it is 
> declared insufficient, and its decision of the submittant if he wants to repeat it or not.
> 
> Every vote has to be clear and can only have 2 or 3 options to be decided between !

When choices are *that* clear, the decision is never far. A vote would 
only lead to frustration of the ones that think they are right and made 
their best to prove it.

> d. Every member voting to a pending decision has to be capable to understand the 
> subject completely. This is to prevent that non-technical people vote although they 
> don't understand the background of the question.
> If a vote as a technical and a non-technical background it has to be separated into 2 
> votes.
> Its the right of the submittant of the vote to check with everybody who voted if he has 
> understood what the vote was about, by inviting him to the IRC channel and asking 
> questions about the subject. If its becoming obvious this was not the case, the vote 
> of this member is not counted.

Mmm, now I see that the voting system would be the best way to raise 
frustration and war among us... I will never be able to tell who 
can/cannot vote for one thing. Do you know all the background+skills of 
everyone here ?

> e. If a vote is not clear, means that not at least 
> 
> 60% for 2 options
> 40 % for 3 options 
> 
> of all votes are clearly voting for one of the options, than the vote can either be 
> repeated, of the MCF 'core team' can be called.

That should be the first and last thing to do. I think most of us are 
opened enough to take ideas in consideration.

> I assume we sould spread some of the tasks to other team members, as currently 
> there is much too much on the shoulders of a few people only ( robux4 !!! ).
> 
> Anybody volunteering ??

Me... LOL :D





-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf