Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I

in #fractally3 months ago

This proposal updates a the previously ratified proposal entitled: Interim Group Consensus Process, which is now out of date as of August 6th, when we initiated the 2-Round ƒractally system.

New Council Approval Process

The updated process (mirroring the steps from the original proposal) are as follows:

Before each weekly meeting any member with an average rank (as calculated by the avg(level formula below) of 6 or greater may introduce a proposal for consideration by the community. This proposal shall be posted as a link in the comment section of the hive post where we record the consensus results that week. Each qualifying member may only propose one item per week.

After Round 2 of each weekly meeting (on the same video call), those 12 with the highest weekly averages (as calculated by the avg(level) formula below) may discuss the proposal, and if they approve they can reply to the comment with "Approve" or "Reject". If 2/3 of those 12 approve then the proposal passes.

If 2/3 of the 12 fail to reach a consensus within 1 hour to either Approve or Reject then those 12 individuals lose the respect they earned that week.

Average Level Formula
avgnew = (5 * avgold + level) / 6

This is an interim process that can serve until modified using the same process or the automated workflow on fractally.com is ready.

Applying Old Rules to Ratify New Rules

In Round 1 we will ask each group to specify a Level 6 (as we did before we went to 2 rounds) and ask 2/3+ of these people to approve the new interim rules so that we no longer need to specify a Level 6 in Round 1.

Sort:  

It's aligned with our current 2-round consensus. Love when we apply old rules to ratify new rules.
I support this proposal.

If this proposal is approved , then no one is eligible to propose something at the next week's meeting ? Because the "level" in the formula is the level of the member in the previous meeting (?) and the previous meeting was under the old method. Or can the past level be used in the calculation for the next week ?

If someone is absent for a week is their level taken as 0 ? Or is the average calculaed based only on the meeting one attended ?

My guess is that intent is to take 0 for absent weeks. We want to take into account attendance.

A 0 is averaged into your average, you don't go to 0 for one missed week.

This means that it is possible for some members of the council to not be present a given week.

I meant not to drop it all to zero , just taking the level ( or rank ) of the absent week as zero in calculation. I think you meant the same too.

I think "level" is taken from the current meeting. avgold is probably old average. So after every meeting you calculate avgnew. The next week this value becomes avgold. That's my interpretation.

What about someone who just joined recently ? How can their average be calculated ? If the avgnew of the last meeting is taken as the avgold of the next meeting would it cause imbalance because the first "avgold" has an influence in how the averages go from there on ?

I think taking avgold from a set of last meetings ( say 6 ) before a meeting and then taking 0 for absence to get avgnew. This way the average level would be reflected more accurately.

Your starting average is 0 and grows every week you attend and get a level above your current average.

I wonder how likely it is that council will have members, which are not participating in the current meeting. This is a critical question because according to this proposal the penalty for not being able to reach consensus would be harder on those members of a council, which participate in the current meeting, even though non-participation of council members is the thing that might make reaching consensus on proposals hard or impossible.

To reach 2/3 of 12 we need 8 council members. What if more than 4 council members are not participating in the current meeting? Reaching consenus is impossible and the penalty is actually less severe on members who caused it (they were earning less that week, because of non-participation, therefore their penalty would be smaller).

I believe that the 12 people according to this proposal are those 12 with the highest weekly averages out of those who attended the round 2 meeting.

Good thoughts though, I think the wording in this proposal could be changed to clarify that point.

Then I see another problem, the same one that I see in the old interim consensus mechanism. Leaders from any one particular consensus meeting might not be good representatives of a community. I mean leaders of one consensus meeting might make a proposal pass, while leaders of next 10 meetings would have rejected it. I guess leaders of the subsequent meetings could undo any proposals. But proposals getting approved, then rolled-back, re-approved... - This jumping between approval/rejection would be confusing to people, and I'd say we better avoid it. That's why I liked this new proposal initially because as I understood it, it would take 12 people with the highest weekly averages, weighting results of the current meeting the most, but taking into account older ones as well.

Maybe it is not a huge issue for an interim consensus process, but something to be aware of.

Hey everyone!

Please check my post regarding this subject!

I propose to both weight average level and total attendance. I also introduced a logarithmic function so as to flatten the attendance weight.

https://peakd.com/leofinance/@aguerrido/on-interim-consensus-protocol-for-fractal-democracy-systems