Planting a forest

[Michael Allan]

Alex and Conseo,

> >   (a) The group doesn't need votes.  That won't help in a patch
> >       relay.

Alex said:
> haha :-) That sounds funny.
> If I decide to apply a patch, then this could be interpreted as
> giving my vote.
> It isnt necessary to model the giving of votes in an explicit way, its
> given implicitly, right?
> At least that's how you sound
> [/alex]

I guess I wasn't thinking clearly here.  Partly I was thinking of the
early phase when the tree is under-populated and there's no downstream
quorum for patch relay.  Then the group would defer to the public.
They wouldn't even relay the proposal downstream till they had
decisive support from the informal (non-voting) public.  So here, the
internal, formal votes would not matter.
http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/G/p/vohall#Patch_relaying

But now I'm thinking this makes no sense.  It's like asking the public
to vote, which is a contradiction because the public is essentially
informal.  That's its source of legitimacy.  To the extent we ask them
to vote (even +1/-1) we undermine the legitimacy we seek.

So I'm inclined to drop this idea.  Let the patch relay practice work
the same at all scales.  And look more closely at the role of the
public in the relay practice.  It's nothing voter-like, like (f):

> >   (f) Give us a quorum.  We ask for an informal thumbs up/down on
> >       each patch relay.  If the public doesn't like it, then we
> >       hold off.
> >
> >   (g) Give us ideas for (b).
> >
> > Maybe this kind of "public consultation" would always be a good
> > idea, even when the canopy was buzzing with activity.  It feels
> > like the right way to connect with a larger public.  Of course, we
> > might also expect to attract new users from forums.  But we'd
> > never have to push for that.  All we'd really need is (f) and (g).

> by the way, your diagrams are hard to read, because somehow the font
> google mail uses often distorts them very much.

There's no way to switch Gmail to monospace?  Please see here:
http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2013-January/001591.html
http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2013-January/thread.html#1591

> reagarding (f) and (g), i dont understand who that should look like
> in practice and all the examples i can make up dont feel right

I think Conseo points to the crucial thing:

Conseo said:
> ... To me it makes some sense to raise patches in public forums
> (fitting the issue) upfront in general, as this improves the
> reasoning and quality of the proposals put forward. ...

I agree.  What we need immediately are reasons why the patch might be
unacceptable to those affected.  That's what we ask for in the forum.
So, for example:

   Ge.  What do you think of our patch?  We're worried it might be
        unacceptable to others.

   Li.  I like it.

   Ge.  Can you think of a reason why anyone *wouldn't* like it?

   Li.  Well, I know folks who'd be opposed to BLAH in particular.

   Ge.  Why?  You mean because of BLAH BLAH?

   Ta.  Yes, (hello) and don't forget BLAH BLAH BLAH.

   Ge.  BLAH BLAH we've discussed before.  It appears to make no sense
        because of ETC ETC.  Please see here: URL

        Can you explain more about BLAH BLAH BLAH.  Why exactly might
        they think THIS and THAT?

And so it goes.  The patch is exposed to the rational critique of a
public that represents its larger self.  By this I mean we ask each
person who speaks to think on behalf of others who are not present in
the forum and cannot speak for themselves.  The dialogue is expressly
informal and unboxed, but records are kept and accompany the patch on
its way downstream.

Mike