Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main: Difference between revisions

{{KidsIntro|Most of the time, a group does not need to vote. Someone tries something, and if it does not work, others can undo it or talk about it. But when a large group has to settle a big question for good, voting gives everyone a fair say. How do we know a question is big? One idea: when many people say it matters, a bit like in Switzerland, where citizens collect signatures to ask for a national vote. WikiDeal wants easy votes for simple yes-or-no questions, smarter votes when there are many choices, and no vote at all when doing and talking are enough. This page is the door to everything about voting at WikiDeal.}}

{{ExpertIntro|Entry page of the Voting portal. First point, stated upfront: formal voting is not intended for every decision. The initial hypothesis is that consensus requirements should follow the degree of stakes, and that the degree of stakes is expressed by the community itself: the more people raise a question, the higher the stakes. This idea is inspired by the Swiss popular initiative and referendum. Voting complements lighter tools (direct action, revert, discussion) rather than replacing them. The voting method should match the complexity of the decision: simple majority for binary questions, Condorcet-style ranked voting (Schulze method) where a case is complex and there is a clear, shared perception that it must be put to a vote, consensus for editorial work, and single transferable vote for multi-seat elections. The portal also explores a Slashdot-inspired karma mechanism for agenda setting, collegial decisions by small panels structured around User Groups, and a humble framing of wiki-style participatory governance (wikicracy). It covers the methods under study, the proposed rules (eligibility, secret ballot, quorum, election committee, challenges), a research page grounded in the documented practice of the Wikimedia, Debian and Mozilla communities plus peer-reviewed literature, and a page on the documented history and results of Condorcet voting. Everything is a first hypothesis, to be validated by the steering committee and then by the community.}}

WikiDeal aims at community ownership, following the principle of one user, one vote described on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]] page. That principle only becomes real through concrete [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting voting] procedures, used sparingly, for the decisions that actually need them (see the ladder of decision tools below). Several parts of the intended model would rely on them:

* '''Open calls.''' The evaluation of [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main|Open Call]] proposals is intended to combine a public vote with an expert panel review.

Adapted to WikiDeal, the mechanism being explored looks like this. Contributors with high karma, that is, rights received through the quality and quantity of their contributions, could take part in choosing the subjects debated in the future, notably by accepting proposed posts for a news blog covering the life of WikiDeal: its policies, its markets, its governance, its funding. An accepted subject would first appear as a brief news item, then be opened to debate through comments. Depending on the case, the process could go further, up to a Condorcet-type vote: notably for elections, but also for decisions of the initiative or referendum type described above. None of this is decided; it is a first sketch of how agenda rights could be earned rather than granted.

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Governance|Governance]]: one user one vote, Exit to Community, deprivatisation.

* [[Gov/en/Portal:Institutions/Is-WikiDeal-a-DAO|Is WikiDeal a DAO?]]: what a decentralized autonomous organization is, and where WikiDeal stands with respect to that model (now in the Institutions portal).

* [[Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Open-Call:Main|Open Calls]]: public vote plus expert panel.