Meta-Tool

[koikaze]

Thank you, Friedrich Lindenberg

I've been thinking about canceling my subscription to this list for
precisely the reasons you listed.  The discussion seems to have
developed a greater interest in the wonderful things the technicians
can do than in the purpose for doing them.

* A proposal is a product of a human mind.

* Whether or not other humans support a proposal is the product of
their minds.

The purpose of a voting system is to present a proposal so humans may
support or oppose it and to provide them a means of expressing their
support or opposition.  Enhancements may include a means of refining
the proposal for clarity or improvement.

The only person who knows the precise meaning and purpose of a
proposal is the person who makes it.  Hence, the person who makes a
proposal must be its initial sponsor and supervise its evolution.

Because a one-to-one mapping of thoughts to words is difficult (if not
impossible), proposals often need to be refined.  If one must be
refined, each refinement must be supported by a rationale.  If
refinements are accepted, the sponsor must fit them into the proposal.

This is an iterative process with two outputs:

1) the revised proposal
2) any rejected provisions

Ideally, the system will provide for voting on both outputs.  It is
possible that rejected provisions will assume greater importance than
the initial proposal.  In such an instance, someone must take
responsibility for creating a new proposal.

There are a number of subsidiary concerns:  The original proposal may
fail to gain support, the original sponsor may become unable to
continue sponsorship, attempts at revision may be indecisive, and I'm
sure many more, all of which must be resolved.

The following diagram is intended to convey the idea, it is not
comprehensive.  Arranging such a system is non-trivial.

  SPONSOR 1
      |
   PROPOSAL            73 For   18 Against
    BLMRX
      |
  OPPOSER 12
  objects to
  provision L
  and provides
  rationale for
  objection
      |
  Vote on objection    27 For    3 Against
      |
  SPONSOR may or may
  not accept revision
  If accepted:
      |
   PROPOSAL           338 For   24 Against
    BMRX
      |
  SUPPORTER 87
  proposes addition
  of provision H
  and provides
  rationale for
  addition
      |
  Vote on addition    411 For   48 Against
      |
  SPONSOR may or may
  not accept revision
  If accepted:
      |
   PROPOSAL           491 For   43 Against
    BHMRX
      |
  (Obviously, if SPONSOR
   does not accept the
   revision, the results
   will be different.)

  (Meanwhile, SUPPORTER 23
   offers an alternative
   as SPONSOR 2)
      |
   PROPOSAL           291 For    2 Against
     BRX
      |
     etc

The process proceeds until termination conditions for each proposal
are met.

Fred Gohlke