What about a common testprotocol, something (stylesheet?) that contains the features in the CC proposal so that we can evaluate each feature for each tool with a number and with comments or whatever so that we easily can share and better compare our examines.

We agreed before to use Loomio threads for the reviews, but I suppose it would be good to have a stylesheet next to it to collate results; would you like to create one?

Mats - thats a good idea. I've been creating a template with section headers for the wiki I'm writing this up in... would be good if you suggest a short list of headers?

I suggest we start with text descriptions (to capture a richer feedback), and move towards a tabular form?

Ah - just seen the spreadsheet - that's great thanks!

You can use only the text-related cells if you wich.

My template is already uploaded

yes thank you for starting it!

I have an opinion. It is very loud and just like Milton Friedman makes everybody look stupid who doesn't agree. Is it democracy if you fall for my demagogy? :hugging: How are emojis meant to bring fact-orientedness to this debate? :wrestlers_tone5:

Does the Google Tag Services thing serve any political purpose, or is it just here to let the NSA know what is being debated?

So far, it seems we have the following people testing the following platforms: @sergioarbarviro Nova Ideo; @lynx Liquid Feedback; @ristoalakaila Loomio. Who would like to review which other platform? I could review Discourse.

Maestro conference I guess was mentioned in the meeting 18/2, unless someone has insights and know it's no use checking it out, I can go for it.

Hi Mats! Is Maestro conference just a conference call platform or an actual discussion platform like Discourse and Loomio? If it's the second, we should indeed initiate a review

I can do that

Mats

Den den 1 mars 2018 klockan 12:52 skrev Wessel Reijers [email protected]:

Wessel Reijers

Wessel Reijers replied to you in: Division of work ( https://www.loomio.org/ahoy/messages/70wr7x0EimZFKnXBHd02Nf2mxlvMqf9i/click?signature=a0cceda4082fd72266274bb5c8a9c438c8cfaba5&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loomio.org%2Fd%2FdsxAG5Q9%2Fdivision-of-work%3Futm_campaign%3Dcomment_replied_to%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dthread_mailer )

We agreed before to use Loomio threads for the reviews, but I suppose it would be good to have a stylesheet next to it to collate results; would you like to create one?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on Loomio ( https://www.loomio.org/ahoy/messages/70wr7x0EimZFKnXBHd02Nf2mxlvMqf9i/click?signature=d50b7711ae71ead6e9736b871bbf7c0ee7984b20&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.loomio.org%2Fd%2FdsxAG5Q9%2Fcomment%2F1623193%3Futm_campaign%3Dcomment_replied_to%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dthread_mailer ).
Change your email preferences ( https://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=H-AXFJ8ArQcLvFyms_cu&utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=comment_replied_to ).

Logo

Hi here is a test-protocol with the features & proposals suggested by CC and the Proposal itself as well

ethercalc.org instead of xls?

I haven't checked into ethercalc.org but I guess it would work as long it doesn't twist the overview and func of the protocol, would you like to convert it?

I created one: please use this sheet: https://ethercalc.org/o6ejym0y8bs5

Could we add a another metric? Quite an important one:

How easy and democratic is the moderation within the platform?

I wonder if we can use Loomio to rate the different features. Will do a test.

David, just so I don't misunderstand this. "Let's use Loomio and Discourse" Do you mean for the administration of the evaluation or do you mean as a suggestion for the final choice of tool(s)?

@matssederholm - good question :) I was really testing the Loomio culture - make a proposal to provoke a discussion. The sub-title is the exact text from the original doc from Eric I think - "Let's adopt Discourse for discussions, use Loomio for proposals + voting"

The idea is that you change your mind during the discussion period. I'm also testing how flexible Loomio is nowadays as i haven't used it in a couple of years.

okay, thanks for explaining.

In the proposal communicated to Dem Labs it says:
Proposal 1: adopt Discourse for discussions, use special subforum for proposals + voting

Proposal 2: adopt Discourse for discussions, code proposals platform

Proposal 3: adopt Loomio for proposals, let members discuss on Facebook or wherever they want (not provide an official forum)

Proposal 4: adopt KuneAgi for proposals, continue to use existing forum for discussions

Proposal 5: adopt Mattermost for discussions, adopt Loomio for proposals

So your quote puzzles me.

But I would suggest there should be no anchoring but rather to check out what is out there according to your best knowledge and in regards to the required features. I say "you" as my position together with Nathalie is more of being supportive.

Loomio has given me application-error repeatedly the last days, on different computers and mobile (android). It doesn't look promising to me. Solidity and access is just as important as any of the features Anyone with more experiences of loomio than me, comments?

@matssederholm I had the same issue.

Some old review document made by DiD about a year ago: https://mypads.framapad.org/mypads/?/mypads/group/did-tools-6r1ops7fi/pad/view/did-voting-tools-ou1ovs7yq

@wesseldublin, what about Democracy Earth? Not worth checking within next 24 hours since it was in your DiD list? Other ones not inspiring, Loomio and Discourse already on the bench.
https://www.democracy.earth/

http://sovereign.software/

Hey @davidbovill and all folks! I can´t find the time poll option at the categories of the review, or is it considered to fall into the category of "Facilitating (local) event". While we are constantly searching for dates for meetings both live (local) and online it would be quite convenient to have a calendar application integrated, or how?

Isn't the meaning of dotvoting that all of us has the same number of dots to share on the different topics?

30 dots in total right?

Yes that would work for most of us, but not for Wessel and David.
I just want to make sure we're all on the same amount of dots

I am currently working on the EtherCalc document. Great idea! It fits perfectly well with the standard professional procedure of "compliance tables" in calls for tenders in technical environments. My only observation would be to change the title of the "comments" column into "justification of the mark given". I have made this change on the Nova-Ideo column that I am leading.

Regarding the spreadsheet

The first row in the spreadsheat beginning with "Proposals & Feature Concluded...." is just a descrption of all the features that is then listed below and not supposed to be evaluated by itself. When the original spreadshit in MS Excel was converted to this some formatting was lost and the content perhaps lost a bit of simplicity and overview.

Regarding UI & UX

UI & UX considerations should be evaluated as well but is forgotten, I guess, these are very important areas. Maybe they should be brought in as being evaluated as well.
But if so, let's do it when we all agree on it or maybe we should just keep these areas in mind discussing the outcome of all of this

Regarding LiquidFeedback

Do anyone know if we have an evaluation by @lynx on its way?
I really would like to have that tool evaluated before we move on to decisions.

Do we need more time? Let's discuss this at the meeting 6 pm

Hi guys, was there supposed to be a meeting at 18.00 CET time? Did you send a Zoom invitation (can't see one)?

https://zoom.us/j/617408173

Work done (already on last Saturday 03 March 2018)