Describe VirianCouncil-2003-09-02 here.

<hermit> Good morning <Shadow> yes, good morning.

<Shadow> hm? <hermit> That was the way that I perceived it anyway. <Shadow> hmmm. <hermit> hmmmm. <hermit> Shadow: Now, speak about about your selected means of communication... or non-communication. <Shadow> oh. yeah. snideness. <Shadow> yeah that sounds like a standard operating procedure in one of my "grumpy" moods.

<hermit> It's ok Kid-A, we still love you <hermit> Shadow, please refrain in future. <Shadow> But basically I think I need to rewrite that poll, because "incest" aside, I think some people didn't quite understand what I was trying to say <Shadow> hah, yeah, right. <hermit> Be grumpy to David & I in person, on IRC, even on the wiki. <Shadow> I make no promises. :-) <Kid-A> poll? what poll? did i miss a poll?

<Kid-A> holy cow <Shadow> I still had a point to "incest", but right now explaining that would probably violate doctors orders. <hermit> ? <hermit> Too much keyboard use? <Shadow> I still had a point. <Shadow> yeah. <hermit> SHit <Shadow> I'm not joking.

<hermit> It's supposed to be good for the prostate <hermit> Ok, I'm listening <Shadow> well, its certainly not democratic. <hermit> Nobody has said anything about democracy. <Shadow> it doesn't even really provide a result that is necessarily embraced by most of the people. <hermit> Except that it is a bad idea. <hermit> Which is why we have a sumucracy

<hermit> And it seems to be. <Shadow> "sumucracy"? <hermit> httphttp://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/sumucracy <Shadow> hmmm. <hermit> Shadow - which is why the wiki. Which is a continuation of the Codex comnbined with another year of off line discussion, as well as the IRL discussion as well as the IRC discussions... <Kid-A> i c we r talking about the rep system again? <Shadow> Kid, yeah. <hermit> Kid-A - here httphttp://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianReputation <Shadow> I don't envision this performing the same function as the "virian council". I agree that its a nice way to see what "popular virians" are thinking about, but it doesn't seem either 1) transparent or 2) conducive to much deliberation which democracy IS about . . . and a good thing I might add. <Shadow> I don't see everyone in Virus having "a vote". but I do think that some sort of council should itself operate in a more democratic fashion than this. <hermit> Why? <hermit> Are you saying "all men are equal? <Shadow> no i'm not. <hermit> The democracy lies in the fact that anyone can earn a reputation. <hermit> And remarkably quickly. <hermit> The truth of that is highly visible on the board. <hermit> If you look at the actual value of any one person (including the respected) it is relatively small. <hermit> You need to look. <hermit> Here httphttp://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=repIndex <Shadow> I have. <hermit> Taking 1.5% as an arbitrary cut-off: <hermit> httphttp://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=repIndex <Shadow> I'm not suggesting something INSTEAD of the reputation/voting system, I'm suggesting something in addition to it.

<hermit> Second last column is equity

<hermit> Notice that aside from David at 15%, the next 5 have only 25% of the total equity. <Shadow> Okay Hermit, imagine this now . . . . <hermit> In other words, the council (top 6) currently commands less than 40% of the vote.

<hermit> Listening carefully. <Shadow> right, The Council. <Shadow> not really a formal entity. <Shadow> yet <hermit> Right <Shadow> but certainly the reputation system might suggest some names that will more likely than not be on it. <Shadow> I think a real formal council is a necessary balance to this voting reputation system.

<hermit> As you have seen, it is in progress <hermit> httphttp://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianCouncil <Shadow> It doesn't matter so much if a few members do nothing more than offer their equity. <hermit> I hope that it doesn't get back to that situation. <hermit> If it does, the equity only people are likely to sag rather rapidly IMO,,, <Shadow> that's reality Hermit. <hermit> We've been there before

--> rhino (rhino@212.205.234.191) has joined #hermit

<Shadow> And we will probably be there again. <hermit> And we can play musical chairs - quite transparently, if we have to <hermit> Hi Rhino <hermit> How do you like my one-liners? <rhino> hey hermit, Shadow <Kid-A> hey rhino <rhino> ah, they should be handy for the nix folks <rhino> hey Kid

<Shadow> Still, even of those who would be "window dressing" do frequently enough make a good point or express a relevant opinion. After all they probably didn't get equity for doing absolutely nothing in the first place.

--> Lucifer (nemo@24.244.36.179) has joined #hermit

<Shadow> welcome, Lucifer. <hermit> Jake doesn't want to type too much, so I'll toss you a log afterwards Lucifer <hermit> She's off. <hermit> I'll edit and post to the wiki <rhino> good, because i have no idea what it was about

<hermit> Still, even of those who would be "window dressing" do frequently enough make a good point or express a relevant opinion. After all they probably didn't get equity for doing absolutely nothing in the first place. <hermit> * hermit nods <hermit> A quich refresh will get you a readable table <hermit> No it wont <hermit> Damn the wiki and its insane formatting <Lucifer> heh, damn the wiki <hermit> Ok. <hermit> Now it will work <Lucifer> must get coffee before reading it <Lucifer> brb <hermit> BTW the table is courtesy of the first of those oneliners <hermit> But the second is the real masterpiece

<Lucifer> I think rhino was making the same point in #virus yesterday <Lucifer> or similar <hermit> When? <hermit> More or less? <rhino> what point? <Lucifer> About adding more process to voting <rhino> about explicit arguments? <rhino> yes, isn't there an expression "he pulled a fast one"? <hermit> Did Rhino read the VirianVoting/WikiVote sections? <hermit> Indeed <rhino> i believe that the implication opf a decision must have a chance to become visible <hermit> Most, but not all of the time. <hermit> One reason why one has a council <rhino> did they change recently? <Lucifer> We could vote on whether to have a vote or not for each issue <hermit> I think on the weekend <hermit> Lucifer, yes <hermit> That is exactly what I was getting to. <hermit> Easy to implement on the Plone board. <Lucifer> But I was thinking that we can combine that vote with the real vote just by removing the abstentions from the quorum level <hermit> Still not public. <hermit> Ah <hermit> Hmm, <hermit> I think the Coucil level approval is needed before the vote on a vote goes public. <hermit> Same way as I see for "Representative Boards" <Lucifer> Proposed new notation: Vector7 for members with rep 7+, Vector6 for members with rep 6+, etc <Lucifer> Currently the only approveal needed to create a vote is one Vector7 <hermit> Tina came up with ubervector :-) <hermit> LOL <Lucifer> heh <hermit> And I replied with memaniac - but her opinion was that we had had one or two too many of those already...

<Lucifer> Maybe new votes should be hidden until made public by a Vector8 <hermit> The trouble is that V7 seems to perpetuate that patrticular rating - which was arbitrary <Lucifer> It was arbitrary but we need to create a finite number of levels to use in policy making <Lucifer> The reputation levels are awfully convenient

<hermit> Even so. <Lucifer> but we can divorce them

<hermit> Good data design <Lucifer> say Vector1 is rep 8+, Vector2 is rep 7+, etc <hermit> Split the key dependencies from the attributes <Lucifer> then we can redefine Vector1 later <hermit> Clever <hermit> That works <hermit> But we have Prime <hermit> So Secundus, Tertia <Lucifer> How many Prime? <hermit> 1 <hermit> Vous <Lucifer> then that is not a level, that is a person <hermit> No <hermit> It is the person with the highwest rep as I defined it. <Lucifer> so everyone rep 8+ is a Prime? <hermit> I think not. <Lucifer> then that is different than levels <hermit> The coulcil also has a chairperson (casting vote) <Lucifer> I'm talking about groups, not titles <hermit> Leave it as prime = highest <hermit> I know <Lucifer> sure <hermit> So am I <hermit> So there is a group of one <hermit> Then a cluster of two <hermit> And an army of three <hermit> And then the congregation <Lucifer> ic <hermit> And way out in the Kuiper Belt are the heretics :-) <Lucifer> that could work <Lucifer> So rhino would be one of two Secundus Vectors? <hermit> Yes <Lucifer> hmm <hermit> Was actually thinking 6 <Lucifer> It would be good if membership in this council was entirely voluntary <rhino> heh i can fixed that <rhino> fix <Lucifer> Can someone always knock themselves out of the top 6 by rating themselves low? <hermit> Yes <hermit> But they can also say I', out and you select the next available. <hermit> Because the rep system makes it trivial. <hermit> And does away with all the pain we suffered over this once before. <hermit> And in any case, with the top 6 operating in cahoots, one can position anyone on the list appropriately if there are issues. <Lucifer> The answer to my question is no, I'm still #1 after rating myself 1 <rhino> hmm... let me try it <hermit> So I don't see any particular strategic objections or potential embarrassments. <Lucifer> The point is that I cannot knock myself out alone <hermit> Kharin is now above you ... <hermit> That is with just Rhino, and I operating. <hermit> Along with you. <Lucifer> yes, 3 of us can know me out of the first position <rhino> i tried the "1" on myself <Lucifer> knock <Lucifer> probably any 2 of us can <hermit> Don't forget you have 31 9s when we are not dragging you down <rhino> it seems i went down to 4 <rhino> or 5 <Lucifer> it might take all 6 to knock know me out of the top 6 <hermit> I can check <hermit> A moment <Lucifer> knock <Lucifer> I must type know a lot <rhino> i must increase my rating again to knock you down

<hermit> Say when <hermit> Right now L is #1 <rhino> i did <Lucifer> ok, I rated myself a 1 again <Lucifer> did you two as well? <hermit> Hermit,7.6558,12.34,7.57,3 <hermit> rhinoceros,7.5980,11.68,7.17,418 <hermit> Kharin,7.5825,11.51,7.06,1788 <hermit> Zloduska,7.2946,8.77,5.38,28 <hermit> ElvenSage?,7.2496,8.40,5.15,1355 <hermit> Jake Sapiens,7.0895,7.22,4.43,1404 <hermit> David Lucifer,7.0367,6.87,4.21,1 <rhino> yes <hermit> yes <rhino> still #6 <rhino> it can be done with some more help <Lucifer> I'm #7 now <hermit> Of course, as Lucifer falls (Milton!) we do too... <Lucifer> heh <rhino> #7 now <hermit> I've bounced you back up again <hermit> Lucifer keep yourself at 1 a moment longer <rhino> so, a mutiny is theoretically possible <hermit> With Rhino and I pushing you back up <Lucifer> oops, setting it back now <hermit> Say when <rhino> err.. no, Lucifer would have to down himself too <hermit> Yes <hermit> And he could always whack the mutineers unless they operated in consort <rhino> my rating restored <hermit> Lucifer you at 1? <Lucifer> I'm at 1 <hermit> Tap tap <hermit> David Lucifer,7.8686,15.09,8.60,1 <hermit> Hermit,7.6849,12.68,7.23,3 <hermit> rhinoceros,7.6647,12.44,7.09,418 <hermit> Kharin,7.6512,12.28,7.00,1788 <rhino> conclusion... a leader with a self-respect problem is theoretically possible

<hermit> But a mutiny would need to be pretty conclusive. Possible but unlikely. <Kid-A> wow i've gone up since your exploits, hurrah <hermit> And anyone trying to arrange it could be in the Kuiper belt faster than they could sneeze. <hermit> Which is just how it should be. We remain a church not a debating society. <Lucifer> The dynamics of this system will provide a lot of fodder for academic study <hermit> That was why my little analytical toolchest <hermit> Notice particularly the interesting voting profile. <hermit> Which supports my assertion on percentages. <Lucifer> which assertion? <hermit> Decisiveness <Lucifer> can I rate myself up again? <hermit> Yes <hermit> Please do

<hermit> Setting it at 75% is too high. <Lucifer> agreed <Lucifer> I was just thinking we should set a higher bar for Illumination, not all votes <hermit> I still don't think we will get there. <Lucifer> agreed <hermit> Fewer than 50% of the Congregation are voting in more than 50% of the votes. <hermit> Even with kicks and shoves. <hermit> Apathy <hermit> Bleh <hermit> When we do things hopefully it will change. <rhino> maybe we should pimp them better in the liist <Lucifer> But currently the minimum decisiveness for an Illumination vote is 1% Is that OK with everyone? <hermit> ? <hermit> Hypatia is at 45% <Lucifer> If 31% equity votes for and 30% against, the quorum level is 61% and the decisiveness is 1% and the Illumination passes. <hermit> I suggest that we will never see another as high. <hermit> Ah <hermit> But deciveness is 45% <Lucifer> I'm not talking about a one vote in particular <Lucifer> any one <hermit> And I suggest that for a Saint, we want to see few votes against, many for. <hermit> I know <Lucifer> Exactly <Kid-Away> jah <hermit> I'm trying to set a benchmark based on very low numbers and weak stats <hermit> I'm saying a 60% quorum <hermit> And a 75% positive vote. <hermit> By the weightings. <hermit> Whereas for normal votes I think that 60%|60% still looks doable. <Lucifer> That's another way of saying minimum 50% decisiveness

<hermit> Normally. But the weightings make this interesting. <Lucifer> What weightings? <hermit> Individual weightings. And who votes and doesn't <hermit> Makes prediction much more interesting. <Lucifer> You mean influence? <hermit> Aye <Lucifer> equity I mean <rhino> i have to go. will any of this be posted? <hermit> I'll add it to the log <hermit> On the wiki <rhino> thanks. see you <hermit> When we have 37 votes I can give you much better stats. <hermit> Too high a variance at 27 <hermit> Different clusters of voters too. <hermit> And not having the closing stats is a bitch. <hermit> But I suspect we will see a few more votes happen today <hermit> "Shaming effect" <Lucifer> perhaps <hermit> Heh.

<hermit> The sucking noise is me fetching the stats <hermit> No change since that post <hermit> Need to upload those four little scripts to cut the traffic. 376,906 bytes in 32 files... <hermit> To actually use 766 bytes... <hermit> Yes, I see what you meant re the Rhino discussion.

<hermit> I've zapped the !AdminAttention flag. The idea being that when you are done with it, just whack it. <Lucifer> right <hermit> Can set it for me too as I try to remember to check it when I visit. <hermit> Thanks <hermit> The idea being that !AdminAttention allows you to see the important/urgent stuff without having to wade through the !WorkInProgress pages. <Lucifer> good idea, I've bookmarked it

<Lucifer> So should we have 5 or 6 VirianCouncilors? besides me? <hermit> I think <hermit> But you appoint <hermit> And can fire without reason <hermit> (apathy included) <hermit> Should be four or six excluding you <hermit> ie odd total <Lucifer> OK, how does that relate to the Secundus and Tertiari Vectors? <hermit> Keeps voting swift and clean <hermit> The Secundus is the Council <hermit> Tertious is the Wiki/CMS/Vote proposing level. <Lucifer> I thought you said there would be 2 secundus and three tertiari? <hermit> Could do that too <Lucifer> ok, was confused <hermit> Elegant solution <Lucifer> ok, still confused <hermit> But not what I was thinking <hermit> Then Acolytes? Neophytes? Aspirantes? I'm not sure what the structure used to be.

<hermit> And of course, the Kuipians (who poetically deserve the 7th level) <hermit> Dante's Inferno has the traitors in a frozen wasteland which is the lowest level of hell.

<Lucifer> amended >> httphttp://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/PrimeVector

<hermit> Yes. <hermit> It keeps the chairman's hands clean. <hermit> Bearing in mind we will have an open ballot internally it is largely irrelevant. <hermit> I don't see why the chairman should not vote? <hermit> Can you? <hermit> The hands clean is as I have always understood and implemented it, a matter of external perception. <Lucifer> It is only to deal with the case when there are an even number of directors

<hermit> Which has advantages. <hermit> It allows any 4 votes to win <hermit> In a block of 7.

<hermit> So form a quorum and a vote all in one. <Lucifer> Any VirianCouncilors? may veto a breach of confidentiality. <-- What does this mean? <hermit> That if we have decided something internally, it is de juris confidential. <hermit> On a case by case basis we can vote to disclose. <hermit> However because people need to be able to speak freely under the rose, we also provide that any member may object to disclosing that thing. <Lucifer> OK, any councilor can veto a vote to disclose

<hermit> That way there is no possible justification for not being both honest and outspoken. <hermit> Attributes to be encouraged when it doesn't freak out the membership...

<Lucifer> Interesting that the councilors will likely not hold a majority share of the equity, but will likely hold a majority share of the equity voted <Lucifer> bbiab <RavenBlack?> Evidence of insufficient advertising: httphttp://iam.upsideclown.com/2003_09_01.shtml <RavenBlack?> (...of the CoV, that is - there's more than sufficient advertising in general.)

Last edited on Wednesday, September 3, 2003 10:31:00 am.