Date: December 17th, 2020
Facilitator: Katie
Participants: Bruno, Katie, Vasileios, Nick
Agenda
check in
Prolonged but nice!
Overview of Nathan Call
Important to make the governance process clear in Karrot
Think about what in integrated into the code
Reflection on the conflict resolution
Talk about next steps
Finish sketching later
Now we move on to Stage 3 - Decide
Use heat map and dote to decide what needs more discussion
Do we need to check if there is anything that is still missing?
Stage 3: Decide
Bruno is interested in working with most elemets, maybe we can chose one decision making model, and skip library for now.
Nick likes the vision text box, he had also selected the library but is up for having it as an add-on later. A light weight editing and approval would be useful
Vasileios thinks its import to ask who will test the prototype, if two groups will test it would be nice to integrate intergroup learning, I think all groups should test it. In agreement
Katie try one decision making model or both and do some A/B testing. Categories are interesting and working with the vision text boxes.
TRY: Threshold of approval based on the trust Karrot systems. Reactions and temperature check. A multi-stage process, 1. Temperature Check (If all positive or neutral it gets approved) 2. If negative reactions occur then it need approval from 3ish highly trusted members.
Move on to prototyping, choose what to prototype
things not represented in the sketch right now:
democratic flow around agreement proposals
Build a facade and try to test with multiple groups, Bruno and Katie could test in their groups and then do others over call
Work in tandem, coders start on one page while others work with IA/WIREFRAMES/Mockups
anybody can see the proposal and they can participate in the related chat
nick way: anybody can choose +1,0, -1. The result is score voting → proposal to approve a proposal: x (3 maybe) times more positive votes than negative
if you place a negative vote you should write a msg, negative reactions/vote should be motivated/explained
If the score is in favor of the proposal then it becomes approved.
Brn way: temperature check to get the mood of the room (they do not decide but only editors can accept or reject)–> what happens where people approve sth that has a lot of dislikes? temperature check vs editor-powered
should there be a lower threshold for how many members should vote in order for an agreement to be approved?
Some more discussions later led us to this concept to go forward with:
only editors can submit proposals (katie doesnt morally agree, me neither, but it wont be a problem–> its easy to get karrots thus its ok)
timescale: minimum 1 week + suggestions + custom → pick a specific date
any editor can change the proposal.
What happens when there’s a change? Votes reset? Suggestion: people get a notification of the change and are asked to review their vote
no temperature check
everybody can vote
score voting with negative weighting (2, 1, 0, -1, -2)
anonymous voting
negative votes require a reason and they’re kept anonymous (“explain why you don’t like it”)
At least 5% of members should vote for an agreement to get approved
Proposal with a score >= 0 will be approved
There is some uncertainty about which info to take when first creating the proposal, before the collaborative part starts. Could be duration + title, and/or perhaps a message/context/description of what the proposal is roughly about, or how to participate, or some more human message… tbc.
