On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 8:43 AM, Florent Daigniere nextg...@freenetproject.org wrote:
I think I've stayed silent on this for too long now... So here are the criticisms about the process: I agree, why didn't you air these criticisms when I first proposed the process? You had ample opportunity then. 1) the outcome of the process is non-binding This is to accommodate the reality that no process can 100% substitute for human judgement, and it is to allow for the possibility of the process recommending conflicting or duplicative tasks, or failing to account for dependencies. While it may be possible to account for these in the process, that would make it far more complex. I have said that deviating from the prioritization we produce here would require a strong justification along these lines, not simply people's disagreement with the outcome of the process. 2) the perimeter of the process isn't well defined: your first email talks about a "Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources", the latest is about "Financial allocation". I've missed the step where we've concluded that the resources are all financial. I would refer you to the original proposal <https://gist.github.com/sanity/4cf3b1c3484bdb9926d71bc9c4fc0341>: *For simplicity we will use currency to represent cost, but can agree on how this translates to man-hours.* It is important that all costs be expressed in the same units if tasks are to be evaluated relative to each-other, whether they are man-hours, actual expenditure, or something else. Translating between man-hours and cost is a fairly well-understood problem. 3) in a democracy there are rules on who gets to vote (who qualifies for citizenship)... As my other thread made clear, here it hasn't been defined/thought through... I thought we knew better than that, having worked on a project where Sybil is always a concern In most democracies the consensus is that the more people who get to vote, that are impacted by the decisions, the better. If people appear to be abusing the process then we can address it at that time, but coming up with some kind of hard criteria for who can and cannot participate in the absence of any evidence of bad behavior would be complex and divisive. At this point it would be a lot of trouble to fix a non-problem. Ian. Ian Clarke Founder, The Freenet Project Email: i...@freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
