Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:31:00 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Produced by PhpWiki 1.3.2-jeffs-hacks)
Content-Type: application/x-phpwiki;
  pagename=VirianCouncil-2003-09-02;
  flags="";
  author=VectorHermit;
  version=8;
  lastmodified=1062599460;
  author_id=VectorHermit;
  markup=2;
  hits=20596;
  charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

Describe [VirianCouncil-2003-09-02] here.

<hermit> Good morning
<Shadow> yes, good morning.
* hermit asks why Shadow elected to post snide votes instead of talking?
<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.
* Kid-A looks bewildered and perplexed
<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?
* hermit notes the one Shadow inserted up several noses simultaneously without even using lubricant!
<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 inserts the point where it will do most good...
<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
* Kid-A struggles with all the shiny words
<hermit> And it seems to be.
<Shadow> "sumucracy"?
<hermit> http://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 http://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 http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?action=repIndex
<Shadow> I have.
<hermit> Taking 1.5% as an arbitrary cut-off:
<hermit> http://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> David Lucifer,8.6111,30.46,15.43,1
 *<hermit> rhinoceros,7.7606,13.62,6.90,418
 *<hermit> Kharin,7.7512,13.50,6.84,1788
 *<hermit> Hermit,7.7229,13.14,6.66,3
 *<hermit> Zloduska,7.3613,9.34,4.73,28
 *<hermit> Jake Sapiens,7.3238,9.01,4.57,1404
 *<hermit> ElvenSage,7.0593,7.02,3.56,1355
 *<hermit> Walter Watts,6.9361,6.24,3.16,4
 *<hermit> Kalkor,6.8354,5.68,2.88,213
 *<hermit> Tywick,6.7968,5.47,2.77,419
 *<hermit> RavenBlack,6.7907,5.44,2.76,5
 *<hermit> Sat,6.7494,5.23,2.65,1604
 *<hermit> Blunderov,6.7088,5.04,2.55,1830
 *<hermit> DrSebby,6.5812,4.46,2.26,13
 *<hermit> Jonathan Davis,6.5145,4.19,2.12,1337
 *<hermit> the bricoleur,6.5021,4.14,2.10,1372
 *<hermit> localroger,6.3722,3.66,1.86,1692
 *<hermit> irvken,6.3341,3.53,1.79,1356
 *<hermit> michelle,6.2946,3.40,1.72,161
 *<hermit> Hermitess,6.2347,3.22,1.63,387
 *<hermit> Kid-A,6.1837,3.06,1.55,1700
 *<hermit> crw,6.1530,2.98,1.51,1853

<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 nods
<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 agrees
<hermit> As you have seen, it is in progress
<hermit> http://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
* hermit nods
<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.
* hermit nods

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

* hermit bows
* Shadow looks disgusted at the defiling of Log Lady's office.
<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
* 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.)
