FAQ Rules Explained

[Saari at aol.com]

NON-HIERARCHICAL GROUP DECISIONS
A Brief Explanation   by saari at aol.com

We are trying out a new system of democratic
parliamentary procedure, to generate a FAQ for this
group and other related issues.  This system is NOT
consensus, nor is it majority rule, nor is it Robert's
Rules - although it has elements borrowed from all of
these traditions.  This message provides a brief
overview.  This method will allow this group to
generate FAQ content and make other decisions in a
rational manner, without giving any member (including
myself) excess influence.

It's not very complicated.  Basically, members "make a
proposal" (i.e. call for a vote) at any time, on any
subject.  Each poll stays open for 7 days.  Multiple
polls may be pending at the same time, possibly with
overlapping topics.  Members vote on any given
proposal by indicating ASSERT or OPPOSE.  (Other
responses are also allowed, including general
discussion, indications of mild support, etc., but they
don't count as votes.)

Votes are cast by sending an email message to the
proposer, with the vote as the first word in the
Subject: line (and the poll subject as the rest of the
line).  Any non-standard voting word or non-standard
placement will result in that message being counted
as discussion, not a vote.  This rule is ironclad (to
avoid most possible sources of dispute).

After the waiting period has elapsed, the proposer
sends a message announcing the results.  If the
"assert/oppose ratio" (the number of ASSERT votes
divided by the number of OPPOSE votes) exceeds
2:1 then the proposal has passed and a "group
decision" automatically results.

That's basically it!  The rest of this message contains
some rationale for the design of the system.  Later
messages will discuss some unobvious
suggestions/hints for users.

This decision system has a certain resemblance to
"Robert's Rules" (i.e. the group "votes" on proposals
made by members).  However, it has no centralized
control (failure) points and only takes about one page
to specify, not an entire book.  This system has
several unusual features, including:

o Calls for a vote may be made anytime, not just after
"adequate discussion".
o All proposals are voted "as is" with no amendments.
o The "passing margin" is defined as a ratio instead of
simple majority.
o Proposers tally their own proposals.
o There are three distinct "votes" defined, not just two.

So there are several novelties to this system - each
feature contributes a vital element.  The following
Q&A will briefly discuss the rationale and implications
for each unusual aspect.


	But sometimes discussion IS important.  Won't
we get a bad result if there are "premature" calls for
votes?

If someone makes a premature proposal, you (and
anyone else who feels similarly) can just vote
OPPOSED.  Most truly premature proposals will
quickly fail - the high ratio passing requirement makes
sure of that.

In general, many or most "fresh" proposals on a new
topic are likely to fail.  But the initial, specific proposal
does a fine job of stimulating clear, focussed
discussion.  In fact, the format of "proposal, then
reasons for rejecting" IS a form of discussion, and
serves the desired purpose.  The reasons given for
opposition give a useful focal point for needed
improvements.

Instead of the usual "discuss (until done) then vote",
this new paradigm is more like: "Propose and vote,
then discuss and more proposal/votes.


	What if someone's proposal is "pretty good" but
needs to be fixed or has a fatal flaw?  Why can't I
amend someone else's proposal?

Amending someone's proposal means the group
never gets to vote directly on the original concept.  In
most decision systems with "amendments" there arise
situations which encourage "tactical" or dishonest
voting - plus the amendment process can be used to
create an artificial delay of the decision time.

Under this new system, there is no need to settle for
second-best however.  You can always post your own
proposal, similar to the other one but with the defect
corrected.   Each variation then gets judged on its own
merits.

This still leaves the question of how you should vote
on the original proposal in the meantime.  If you feel
the defect is serious (such that doing *nothing* is
better than the proposal as stated) then by all means
vote OPPOSED.  But if it is only a minor defect, it
might be better to just let it pass as is, then propose
the desired small change later to make it even better.
The choice is yours.


	Why 2:1 for the passing ratio?

Using a "passing ratio" is a balance between "majority
rule" and "consensus", preserving many of the
advantages of both.  The actual value may move up
or down (by group decision) but I believe that nearly
every group, regardless of size, would have good
results with a passing ratio somewhere between about
3:1 and 10:1.  (We are starting a bit low with 2:1 but
can correct later if we want.)