Unofficial FAQ working group

[Saari at aol.com]

To the EM group-
It's good to see that others are interested in an iterative process in EM to
develop a FAQ.  To anyone wishing to participate (either writing or just
"screening proposals"), please respond.

If you would like to be involved in creating a draft FAQ for EM but have
little interest in the selection of a "bootstrapped decision procedure", just
say so and skip the rest of this message.  Otherwise, please read on before
responding.

Let's assume that we (the working group) wish to operate as a pure democracy
(where all members have equal power).  Regardless of whether we ever conduct
an "election", there is still the necessity of defining a basic "group
decision" procedure.  And there are a variety of methods to choose between.

The hardest group decision will be the first one, as it must occur *without*
a predefined criteria for success.  (The first decision will likely be to
establish some criteria for subsequent decisions.)  Once the basic system is
in place the group can choose to evolve it in any way desired, but the
initial "bootstrap" process is quite tricky and may involve some finesse.

While there are a number of issues (who is a member?  how much time to allow
for a vote? different criteria for different issues?  how to resolve disputed
outcomes?) the most central issue is the "required score" or criteria for
passage of a basic group decision.  Here are a variety of plausible initial
methods.  I hope I've covered all significant variations - let us know if an
important alternative was omitted.

(Remember, any of these would be just to get started - the group would then
evolve as desired.)  To all would-be participants, please indicate what you
think of each, *after* reading this entire message.  Thanks.

A) "Delegate".  The group puts someone in charge, or someone puts themselves
in charge.  That person then writes the initial criteria for group decisions,
with the rest of the group offering advice (which might be followed or
ignored...).

B) "Robert's".  Standard parliamentary procedure, ala "Robert's Rules of
Order".  Requires a chairperson to control discussion, amendments and order
of voting.

C) "Majority".  A proposal passes if it achieves more support than
opposition.

D) "Majority-plus-minimum".  Like "majority", but also requires a minimum
specified level of support.

E) "Difference".  A proposal passes if it receives N more support votes than
oppose votes.  (Example: Usenet group creation.)

F) "Ratio".  A proposal passes if it achieves a specified ratio of support
versus opposition.  Assume 2:1 (i.e. 2/3) for starters.

G) "High Ratio".  Like "Ratio", but assume 4:1 (i.e. 80%).

H) "Consensus".  A proposal passes if there is no opposition.

I) "Unanimity".  A proposal passes if there is unanimous support.

Quite a list, huh?  Now I'm going to ask you to say what you think of each.
 This is not a "vote" - we have no rules for tallying or deciding - so there
is no need to restrict the responses to simple Yes/No approval,
top-choice-only, or an ordered ranking.  Let's get as complete a response as
possible.  

It will help if you can choose a response from the following list.  (Short
explanations are also encouraged.)  If your opinion doesn't match something
below, use whatever phrasing seems to work.

[In rough order]
TRIPLE-SUPPORT.  An extremely strong level of support - approaching
fanaticism.
FULL SUPPORT.  "SUPPORT" for short.
MILD SUPPORT.  For greater fine-tuning, use a number between +.0 and
+.9999...
WILLING.  Neither support nor opposed, but "willing to go along".  (aka
"Don't care." ?)
GRUDGING.  Like "willing" but not very happy about it.
MIXED.  Some support but also some opposition.  Indicate level of each.
UNCLEAR.  Need more information to decide.
MILD OPPOSITION.  For fine-tuning, use a number between -.0 and -.999...
FULL OPPOSITION.  "OPPOSED" for short.
TRIPLE-OPPOSITION.  Extremely strong opposition - approaching fanaticism.
UNWILLING.  Would quit the group rather than use that method.

Let's see what the group thinks of the proposed starting methods.  Perhaps
we'll get an easy agreement.

Thanks,
Mike S

P.S. Here are my "pseudo-votes" on each method, by way of reference and
example.

A) Delegate.  MIXED.  (FULL SUPPORT + -.2 OPPOSED).  Clearly this is
undemocratic.  I get grief every time I try this one.  Yet I support it
because I suspect that most other bootstrap methods are unworkable except in
very small groups.  It has the advantage of being fast and decisive.

B) Robert's.  MILD OPPOSED.  Dictatorial in disguise, lots of paradoxes, may
be unworkable in email format, requires election of chairperson (which we
don't agree how to do yet).  But as a temporary measure only (just to
establish "real" democratic voting rules), perhaps not so bad.

C) Majority.  GRUDGING.  Too lenient, but we can always change it.

D) Majority-plus-minimum.  GRUDGING.  Too lenient, and minimum requirement
must keep changing as the group size changes to be meaningful.  But we can
always change it.

E) Difference.  GRUDGING.  Choice of N depends on group size (messy).

F) Ratio (2:1).  FULL SUPPORT.  I like this alot.

G) High Ratio (4:1)  DOUBLE-SUPPORT.  I like this alot.  Most all the
advantages of consensus, but without most of the disadvantages.  Works
equally well with small groups or large.  Distinguishes votes of "support"
vs. "other non-opposed".

H) Consensus.  MIXED (FULL SUPPORT + -.7 OPPOSED).  Great for small groups,
but terrible as the group gets larger.  Also only distinguishes "opposition"
but doesn't distinguish the difference between "support" and merely
"willing".  I wouldn't mind starting here, but would quickly try to move us
to a ratio or percentage less than 100%.  Otherwise, if the group got bigger
than 10 people we might find that a) We can't decide anything and b) We can't
"lower the bar" even slightly because of an obstinate member.

I) Unanimity.  MIXED (MILD SUPPORT + FULL OPPOSED).  Great in theory but
unworkable in practice.  If one member falls asleep the group is frozen.

Nuff said!  Let's hear from other interested participants.
Mike S