@@ -126,5 +126,289 @@ <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
-* Kid-A shrugs
+
+<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
+* hermit nods
+<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 nods
+<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 nods
+<hermit> Even so.
+<Lucifer> but we can divorce them
+* hermit nods
+<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 nods
+<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
+* Lucifer nods
+<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
+* Lucifer sighs with relief
+<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 nods
+<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 identifies the downward force
+<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
+* hermit nods
+<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.
+* Lucifer will ponder whilst making tea
+<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 notes that when a board of directors has an even number of members the chairman's vote is only used for a tie breaker iirc
+<Lucifer> amended >> http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/PrimeVector
+* hermit nods
+<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 nods
+<hermit> Which has advantages.
+<hermit> It allows any 4 votes to win
+<hermit> In a block of 7.
+* Lucifer nods
+<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 nods
+<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 nods
+<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: http://iam.upsideclown.com/2003_09_01.shtml
+<RavenBlack> (...of the CoV, that is - there's more than sufficient advertising in general.)
