Differences between version 7 and previous revision of VirianCouncil-2003-09-02.

Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Author

Newer page: version 7 Last edited on Wednesday, September 3, 2003 9:51:32 am. by VectorHermit
Older page: version 6 Last edited on Tuesday, September 2, 2003 11:05:01 am. by DavidLucifer
@@ -126,5 +126,299 @@
 <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, Lusifer 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.   
+--> A-KO (mandy@pcp228456pcs.catonv01.md.comcast.net) has joined #hermit   
+<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> Please... AdminAttention Please move the pages not relating to !VirianXXX or !WikiXXX (i.e. NewMarkupTestPage, PhpWikiAdministration, TestPage and TextFormattingRules) elsewhere. I have created a temporary directory WikiTest to replace HomePage where it occurs, but couldn't do this for the locked pages with HomePage backlinks. Thanks, VectorHermit.   
+<hermit> @ http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/HomePage   
+<Lucifer> Is that because you added a backlinks plugin tag to the HomePage?   
+<hermit> Yes   
+<hermit> It's just 4 pages   
+<Lucifer> ok   
+<hermit> But locked   
+<hermit> I moved all the others   
+<hermit> And only a little to go on the Lexicon   
+<Lucifer> done   
+<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.)