[EuroPython] Voting structure on the web

[Martijn Faassen]

Andrew Smart wrote:
> > Agreed. But if the people who makes their voices heard on the list
> > all agree, and noone opposes them on the list, I think that the others
> > have given their silent approval or showed that they don't care.
> 
> But you don't know if you have the silent approval, thats my point.
> So you can get ahead with 10 people and find yourself isolated without
> knowing.

You put up a proposal. You announce it widely. You ask people to
comment. If people object, you adjust. If people don't and you get
some positive responses, you decide to take a chance
and go ahead. You could take a poll along the way, but this doesn't
make it more fair and democratic if it's unclear who sets up the poll
and the questions, and who gets to vote. A poll is then just another tool
to gauge interest, and we may use this if this is deemed important.

Just look at the poll comp.lang.python came up with for the conditional 
expression for an example on how voting itself can take a wrong turn without
a system in place. (they designed the voting system along with the options 
to vote for, and it was *complicated*, undemocratically designed, and didn't
allow one to vote 'no'. The main good thing about it was that it had
many options, so it was inclusive there).

[snip]
> If you start a new democracy one of the first things you have to
> do is 
> - define who is going to be allowed to vote (say: a phyisical
>   area, boundaries, ages or so)
> - to register all possible voters
> 
> The first step is more or less anarchy. If there is no structure,
> you don't have a structure. Point. So you can not use a structure
> to build up the structure. Point.

So let's discuss this structure before we worry about a vote?

> If you talk about "bylaws" and "vote rules" you oversee in my opinion 
> that you need to get enough people to accept this organisation to use
> the rules. But: the whole discussion is about founding this
> organisation. So you can not say "our" laws are the "bylaws" because
> currently no one is member of anything. To get the people to be
> member you'll have to found the stuff, and without anything you 
> can not apply the bylaws or discussion rules. 

So far I can follow this.

> So "we" have to agree
> on procedures how to discuss about and how to found this organisation, 
> and for this you need some voting tool.

I disagree with this. The procedure to decide on a good structure is
*not* the use of a voting tool. How you set up a good structure is
a free and open discussion and the formation of a rough consensus.
Magnus already asked the questions; who is going to come up with the
votes, where will the vote be announced, who will interpret the vote?
Answer: we need a rough consensus on this.

So let's form this consensus and come up with some rules on the vote.
Then perhaps we can find members and have a vote. The point is not
about voting though; it's about getting a transparent organization
to work. Voting is a means to accomplish this, not a goal.

> You need both: a horse and 
> a cart to get off the ground.
> 
> On way would be: "what the heck" and found with a few friends
> the EPC non-profit-organisation, announce it and try to use this
> organisation. Problem: you'll be ahead of the community and may
> cause the split you mentioned above.

The answer on how to bootstrap things can *only* be a considered 'what the
heck'.

How do you avoid running ahead of the community? You announce the intention 
to form the organization first. You give people time to respond. This allows
interested members of the community to come and participate.

Regards,

Martijn