Ian Clarke writes: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 10:29 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de > wrote: > > I’m trying to make sure that the process is ironclad. > > … > > scale conflicts about it and there’s a split in the userbase. Therefore > > … > > But the decision we’re talking about is controversial. There were large > > > > You used the process without checking what it can actually say? Then you > > were sloppy and people let you get away with it. For uncontroversial > > decisions, no problem with that. > > > I was not sloppy, the problem of strategic voting that you're so concerned > about > was discussed in my original proposal, as a reminder: > A few important things here to ensure we get the true benefit of “wisdom of > the > crowd”: * Don’t be strategic (eg. don’t over-allocate to one area because you > assume others might under-allocate to it) > * Don’t collude > * Don’t consider difficulty in your value allocation > * If you aren’t sure, leave stuff at an even allocation, don’t assign 0 > value
Setting rules you cannot enforce is sloppy. What you did might work very well in an environment where you know all people where they all vote more or less honestly due to peer pressure. In an environment with anonymous contributors with people who have very different requirements (some of which we do not know - which is part of the point of asking them), that’s different. Here a method which is very prone to strategic voting is problematic, and the least to do about it is to quantify the size of the problem. Which I did. I did not merely ask you to do it but went for it and did it myself. > All you seem capable of doing is criticizing from the sidelines This, written in a thread where I show a cleaner method of evaluation along with an implementation of a way to see which reasoning can actually be taken from the poll as it was conducted. > Whether it's refusing to use Google Docs because I was mean to you > off-list on an unrelated matter You attacked me for saying that Google Docs is unsuited. It is unsuited. A significant fraction of our votes came via FMS (the Freenet Message System, the main forum system in Freenet) - from anonymous people to whom Google Docs was a no-go. When you attacked me I decided that I would stop trying to discuss that with you and instead just not take part in a process which uses methods which do not work at all for a significant fraction of the the people we ask. > , or now whether you're complaining about a problem that was discussed in > my original proposal as if it's some kind of oversight. Assuming that an arbitrary group of anonymous people will follow the rules without any way to check that (not even a sanity check because we do not know their requirements) is a pretty big oversight. However, from your reactions I have the impression that you do not see it as constructive if someone points out a flaw in something you do, not even if it comes with a way to fix that flaw. Where I come from, pointing out flaws and ways to fix them is called constructive criticism. It is one of the best ways to improve something. Therefore, and to wrap this up, I respectfully disagree with your argumentation. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
