Re: Election process referendum
Re: Election process referendum
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-03 22:07 UTC
Karma is complete bollocks. I can't believe we're bringing this up again.
Anyone with an account on maemo.org and a valid email account should be
allowed to vote. I have not, and still don't understand the fuss about all
this.
If you honestly believe people are going through the trouble of creating
fake email addresses, and then fake maemo.org accounts, just for the sake of
ruining our little voting session, then you're quite bloody arrogant. We've
already seen that removing the limit did not create an unfair voting
process. We've also seen that the vote outcome was unsurprisingly not a
surprise for anyone.
If you really want to create a limit, do it on a time base, so that people
actually have the time to get into the whole project before being allowed to
give their opinion. Fair enough. But why karma? I read the mailing lists,
but I don't necessarily interact until I think it is absolutely necessary.
Does that mean my vote is worth less that people who have the time to send
30 emails a day? Seriously, are you that arrogant? I thought this was
supposed to be an open community.
Sorry for being wrong.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Markus Schneider <markus.schn@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > But where did the information about the karmic makeup of the voters
> > come from?
>
> Well we have ~900 voters and ~600 people (or apparently ~450 last election)
> with karma >25. Thus there must be ~300 people with less than 25 karma who
> voted last time. This is under the (unrealistic) assumption that 100% of the
> ~600 (or ~450) voters will actually vote/actually voted.
> So last election at least half of the voters (presumably much more) did not
> have 25 karma. With the next election at least 1/3 of the people who did
> vote last time will not be able to vote this time (presumably much more).
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
question = ( to ) ? be : ! be;
-- Wm. Shakespeare
Anyone with an account on maemo.org and a valid email account should be
allowed to vote. I have not, and still don't understand the fuss about all
this.
If you honestly believe people are going through the trouble of creating
fake email addresses, and then fake maemo.org accounts, just for the sake of
ruining our little voting session, then you're quite bloody arrogant. We've
already seen that removing the limit did not create an unfair voting
process. We've also seen that the vote outcome was unsurprisingly not a
surprise for anyone.
If you really want to create a limit, do it on a time base, so that people
actually have the time to get into the whole project before being allowed to
give their opinion. Fair enough. But why karma? I read the mailing lists,
but I don't necessarily interact until I think it is absolutely necessary.
Does that mean my vote is worth less that people who have the time to send
30 emails a day? Seriously, are you that arrogant? I thought this was
supposed to be an open community.
Sorry for being wrong.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Markus Schneider <markus.schn@yahoo.com>wrote:
> > But where did the information about the karmic makeup of the voters
> > come from?
>
> Well we have ~900 voters and ~600 people (or apparently ~450 last election)
> with karma >25. Thus there must be ~300 people with less than 25 karma who
> voted last time. This is under the (unrealistic) assumption that 100% of the
> ~600 (or ~450) voters will actually vote/actually voted.
> So last election at least half of the voters (presumably much more) did not
> have 25 karma. With the next election at least 1/3 of the people who did
> vote last time will not be able to vote this time (presumably much more).
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
question = ( to ) ? be : ! be;
-- Wm. Shakespeare
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-03 22:19 UTC
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Sebastian 'CrashandDie' Lauwers
<crashanddie@gmail.com> wrote:
> Karma is complete bollocks. I can't believe we're bringing this up again.
Because some people disagree? Pfft.
[snip what is, effectively, trolling - or, at very best, poor argumentation]
>
> But why karma? I read the mailing lists, but I don't necessarily interact
> until I think it is absolutely necessary. Does that mean my vote is worth
> less that people who have the time to send 30 emails a day?
You want to use yourself as an example of someone who could be
disenfranchised? Who mightn't operate "enough" in the community to be
listened to?
...and yet your current karma ranking is 47[1]. Obviously enough is
"absolutely necessary" to be counted as a valuable contribution, by
any karmic benchmark being tossed around.
I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
future possible device programmes. Why is that OK, but using it as a
benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
Perhaps you can explain, rather than assert? Any power the council
holds (and, despite a few assertions, we DO have some power[2]) will
impact less on 99.9999% of the community than the chance of having
shiny, new, cheap device.
One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
filters, summarises and condenses it?
Cheers,
Andrew
[1] http://maemo.org/profile/view/crashanddie/
[2] We've just been responsible for choosing the debmaster. Not
suggesting a couple of possibilities to Nokia, but *the* final
name. It's reasonable to think that when the debmaster's contract
is up, the council at that point will also have a role in choosing
whether or not to renew for that individual. So, we're talking
about someone's livelihood, thousands of $CURRENCY in someone's
bank balance. This is not an abstract power we're wielding.
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
Maemo Community Council member
<crashanddie@gmail.com> wrote:
> Karma is complete bollocks. I can't believe we're bringing this up again.
Because some people disagree? Pfft.
[snip what is, effectively, trolling - or, at very best, poor argumentation]
>
> But why karma? I read the mailing lists, but I don't necessarily interact
> until I think it is absolutely necessary. Does that mean my vote is worth
> less that people who have the time to send 30 emails a day?
You want to use yourself as an example of someone who could be
disenfranchised? Who mightn't operate "enough" in the community to be
listened to?
...and yet your current karma ranking is 47[1]. Obviously enough is
"absolutely necessary" to be counted as a valuable contribution, by
any karmic benchmark being tossed around.
I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
future possible device programmes. Why is that OK, but using it as a
benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
Perhaps you can explain, rather than assert? Any power the council
holds (and, despite a few assertions, we DO have some power[2]) will
impact less on 99.9999% of the community than the chance of having
shiny, new, cheap device.
One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
filters, summarises and condenses it?
Cheers,
Andrew
[1] http://maemo.org/profile/view/crashanddie/
[2] We've just been responsible for choosing the debmaster. Not
suggesting a couple of possibilities to Nokia, but *the* final
name. It's reasonable to think that when the debmaster's contract
is up, the council at that point will also have a role in choosing
whether or not to renew for that individual. So, we're talking
about someone's livelihood, thousands of $CURRENCY in someone's
bank balance. This is not an abstract power we're wielding.
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
Maemo Community Council member
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-03 22:40 UTC
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> Why is that OK, but using it as a benchmark to indicate someone's
> involvement in the community, to elect a council - to represent that
> community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
Andrew,
Please excuse my butting in, however I would like to ask a serious
question:
Whom do you think might be more knowledgable and (imho) in a better
position to vote on council members:
1) Someone reading the various maemo lists, including the discussions on
this list.
2) Someone posting development related questions on the maemo-developers
list.
3) Someone rating downloadable software on maemo.org.
Options 2 and 3 provide karma, 1 does not, but it does provide a lot of
background (what they deem important, how they interacts etc) on the
people I expect to be candidates for the council.
(And while I would not turn Nokia down if they offered a device, I do
think there are others in the community more deserving and karma might
just be the correct way to measure that)
Best regards,
Jac
---
Jac Kersing Technical Consultant The-Box Development
j.kersing@the-box.com CISSP RHCE http://www.the-box.com
> Why is that OK, but using it as a benchmark to indicate someone's
> involvement in the community, to elect a council - to represent that
> community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
Andrew,
Please excuse my butting in, however I would like to ask a serious
question:
Whom do you think might be more knowledgable and (imho) in a better
position to vote on council members:
1) Someone reading the various maemo lists, including the discussions on
this list.
2) Someone posting development related questions on the maemo-developers
list.
3) Someone rating downloadable software on maemo.org.
Options 2 and 3 provide karma, 1 does not, but it does provide a lot of
background (what they deem important, how they interacts etc) on the
people I expect to be candidates for the council.
(And while I would not turn Nokia down if they offered a device, I do
think there are others in the community more deserving and karma might
just be the correct way to measure that)
Best regards,
Jac
---
Jac Kersing Technical Consultant The-Box Development
j.kersing@the-box.com CISSP RHCE http://www.the-box.com
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-03 22:46 UTC
I don't give a toss about my karma. I just remember that the last time this
was discussed, I was disqualified from voting. Yet, I was more using this as
an example. We could have quite a few members who are silently listening,
and analysing what is happening in the community, and who do not feel the
need to voice their opinions, who do not blog, who do not like HTTP forums.
People like that are being banned from voting, just because they don't
express their opinion publicly?
I don't recall any constitution requiring people to talk so that they would
be allowed to vote. It's not because one has the ability to talk that they
should be forced to.
> I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
> karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
> future possible device programmes. Why is that OK, but using it as a
> benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
> a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
> Perhaps you can explain, rather than assert? Any power the council
> holds (and, despite a few assertions, we DO have some power[2]) will
> impact less on 99.9999% of the community than the chance of having
> shiny, new, cheap device.
I respect the council, please do not shift the focus of this conversation. I
do not undermine its knowledge or the members that compose it. I was
extremely proud and happy to hear the Maemo community was being given the
chance to have a council. Yet, there is a huge difference between utilising
an arbitrary number based on useless data gathered here and there to feed
egos, and empowering trolls with a vote, by removing that vote from others.
Yes, there, I said it. A troll has more chance of gathering karma than a
silent user.
One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
> cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
> contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
> filters, summarises and condenses it?
Because I choose to work the cacophony (btw, nice opinion of what you're
supposed to represent... Very.. Honorable, no, sorry that's not the right
word, very condescending) in different manners than by blogging,
incrementing my posts on itT, or yell about on this discussion list 24/7. I
talk with people, about their views, about their choices. I talk about how
they should brace themselves for the things that are to come, how to help
their project going forward. Because I care about other aspects of this
whole Maemo community which are most definitely not measurable by adding the
bits stored in a database.
[1] http://maemo.org/profile/view/crashanddie/
Aye, and the only reason I have karma points is because I need to sometimes
come here and reach out so that some people don't hurt themselves with their
ignorance. Aye, I'm arrogant as well. At least I care to admit it.
--
question = ( to ) ? be : ! be;
-- Wm. Shakespeare
was discussed, I was disqualified from voting. Yet, I was more using this as
an example. We could have quite a few members who are silently listening,
and analysing what is happening in the community, and who do not feel the
need to voice their opinions, who do not blog, who do not like HTTP forums.
People like that are being banned from voting, just because they don't
express their opinion publicly?
I don't recall any constitution requiring people to talk so that they would
be allowed to vote. It's not because one has the ability to talk that they
should be forced to.
> I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
> karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
> future possible device programmes. Why is that OK, but using it as a
> benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
> a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
> Perhaps you can explain, rather than assert? Any power the council
> holds (and, despite a few assertions, we DO have some power[2]) will
> impact less on 99.9999% of the community than the chance of having
> shiny, new, cheap device.
I respect the council, please do not shift the focus of this conversation. I
do not undermine its knowledge or the members that compose it. I was
extremely proud and happy to hear the Maemo community was being given the
chance to have a council. Yet, there is a huge difference between utilising
an arbitrary number based on useless data gathered here and there to feed
egos, and empowering trolls with a vote, by removing that vote from others.
Yes, there, I said it. A troll has more chance of gathering karma than a
silent user.
One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
> cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
> contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
> filters, summarises and condenses it?
Because I choose to work the cacophony (btw, nice opinion of what you're
supposed to represent... Very.. Honorable, no, sorry that's not the right
word, very condescending) in different manners than by blogging,
incrementing my posts on itT, or yell about on this discussion list 24/7. I
talk with people, about their views, about their choices. I talk about how
they should brace themselves for the things that are to come, how to help
their project going forward. Because I care about other aspects of this
whole Maemo community which are most definitely not measurable by adding the
bits stored in a database.
[1] http://maemo.org/profile/view/crashanddie/
Aye, and the only reason I have karma points is because I need to sometimes
come here and reach out so that some people don't hurt themselves with their
ignorance. Aye, I'm arrogant as well. At least I care to admit it.
--
question = ( to ) ? be : ! be;
-- Wm. Shakespeare
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-03 22:54 UTC
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Jac Kersing <j.kersing@the-box.com> wrote:
>
> Please excuse my butting in, however I would like to ask a serious
> question:
No excusing necessary.
> Whom do you think might be more knowledgable and (imho) in a better
> position to vote on council members:
> 1) Someone reading the various maemo lists, including the discussions on
> this list.
> 2) Someone posting development related questions on the maemo-developers
> list.
> 3) Someone rating downloadable software on maemo.org.
It's a good point. There are two answers, I can see:
1) This is the fundamental problem with karma, and so the requirement
should be scrapped.
2) This is a minor hole in the current karma calculation you've
identifed, and so someone should get points for being subscribed
to a mailing list (n for being subscribed, 0.6n for being subscribed
with the digest, say).
What do _you_ think?
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
Maemo Community Council member
>
> Please excuse my butting in, however I would like to ask a serious
> question:
No excusing necessary.
> Whom do you think might be more knowledgable and (imho) in a better
> position to vote on council members:
> 1) Someone reading the various maemo lists, including the discussions on
> this list.
> 2) Someone posting development related questions on the maemo-developers
> list.
> 3) Someone rating downloadable software on maemo.org.
It's a good point. There are two answers, I can see:
1) This is the fundamental problem with karma, and so the requirement
should be scrapped.
2) This is a minor hole in the current karma calculation you've
identifed, and so someone should get points for being subscribed
to a mailing list (n for being subscribed, 0.6n for being subscribed
with the digest, say).
What do _you_ think?
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
Maemo Community Council member
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-03 23:15 UTC
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Sebastian 'CrashandDie' Lauwers <
crashanddie@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't give a toss about my karma. I just remember that the last time this
> was discussed, I was disqualified from voting. Yet, I was more using this as
> an example. We could have quite a few members who are silently listening,
> and analysing what is happening in the community, and who do not feel the
> need to voice their opinions, who do not blog, who do not like HTTP forums.
> People like that are being banned from voting, just because they don't
> express their opinion publicly?
>
> I don't recall any constitution requiring people to talk so that they would
> be allowed to vote. It's not because one has the ability to talk that they
> should be forced to.
>
If, by constitution, you're referring to constitutions of state3, they have
citizens, and generally give their citizens (subject to some criteria), the
right to vote. There's two possible analogs here for the karma requirement:
there's generally a time limit required for naturalization, and there's an
age limit for voting. FWIW, I see the former as more analogous, but they are
both limits a potential voter must have fulfilled.
Unlike states, which control land and can consider those born in that land
as citizens from birth, the maemo community can have no native citizenry;
every one starts as an outsider, a foreigner, with relatively limited
rights. The reason we don't allow anyone to vote is the same reason a state
does not allow anyone to vote, and the reason we don't allow anyone with a
maemo.org account to vote is the same reason states don't allow anyone in
their territory to vote.
>
>
>
>> I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
>> karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
>> future possible device programmes. Why is that OK, but using it as a
>> benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
>> a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
>> Perhaps you can explain, rather than assert? Any power the council
>> holds (and, despite a few assertions, we DO have some power[2]) will
>> impact less on 99.9999% of the community than the chance of having
>> shiny, new, cheap device.
>
>
> I respect the council, please do not shift the focus of this conversation.
> I do not undermine its knowledge or the members that compose it. I was
> extremely proud and happy to hear the Maemo community was being given the
> chance to have a council. Yet, there is a huge difference between utilising
> an arbitrary number based on useless data gathered here and there to feed
> egos, and empowering trolls with a vote, by removing that vote from others.
> Yes, there, I said it. A troll has more chance of gathering karma than a
> silent user.
>
Fine, so we need to do something to stop the trolls. That doesn't mean that
silent users (leeches? outsiders? trolls? We can't tell!) should be handed
control, just because stopping them doesn't stop trolls.
>
>
> One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
>> cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
>> contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
>> filters, summarises and condenses it?
>
>
> Because I choose to work the cacophony (btw, nice opinion of what you're
> supposed to represent... Very.. Honorable, no, sorry that's not the right
> word, very condescending) in different manners than by blogging,
> incrementing my posts on itT, or yell about on this discussion list 24/7. I
> talk with people, about their views, about their choices. I talk about how
> they should brace themselves for the things that are to come, how to help
> their project going forward. Because I care about other aspects of this
> whole Maemo community which are most definitely not measurable by adding the
> bits stored in a database.
>
But how do you propose we distinguish between you and your ilk, who
apparently make this valuable but completely unmeasurable contribution, and
those who make no contribution at all? If it's really unmeasurable, we can't
measure it, so we have to throw those people out, or include even
deliberately disruptive users who make a new account with a clean email.
> [1] http://maemo.org/profile/view/crashanddie/
>
>
> Aye, and the only reason I have karma points is because I need to sometimes
> come here and reach out so that some people don't hurt themselves with their
> ignorance. Aye, I'm arrogant as well. At least I care to admit it.
>
> And even doing only that, you racked up almost double the current
requirement for karma. Since the world has no shortage of either ignorance
or karma, I expect people like you will be quite able to keep enough karma
in the future. So some people with even stealthier contributions might have
to actually go work on their karma to build it up; that doesn't seem so
horribly bad, and the alternative you present seems worse. (If you don't
think the possibility of outsiders causing grief in a maemo.org election is
realistic, you haven't been on teh intarwebs long enough. Some people will
do anything for lulz, if you know what I mean.)
crashanddie@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't give a toss about my karma. I just remember that the last time this
> was discussed, I was disqualified from voting. Yet, I was more using this as
> an example. We could have quite a few members who are silently listening,
> and analysing what is happening in the community, and who do not feel the
> need to voice their opinions, who do not blog, who do not like HTTP forums.
> People like that are being banned from voting, just because they don't
> express their opinion publicly?
>
> I don't recall any constitution requiring people to talk so that they would
> be allowed to vote. It's not because one has the ability to talk that they
> should be forced to.
>
If, by constitution, you're referring to constitutions of state3, they have
citizens, and generally give their citizens (subject to some criteria), the
right to vote. There's two possible analogs here for the karma requirement:
there's generally a time limit required for naturalization, and there's an
age limit for voting. FWIW, I see the former as more analogous, but they are
both limits a potential voter must have fulfilled.
Unlike states, which control land and can consider those born in that land
as citizens from birth, the maemo community can have no native citizenry;
every one starts as an outsider, a foreigner, with relatively limited
rights. The reason we don't allow anyone to vote is the same reason a state
does not allow anyone to vote, and the reason we don't allow anyone with a
maemo.org account to vote is the same reason states don't allow anyone in
their territory to vote.
>
>
>
>> I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
>> karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
>> future possible device programmes. Why is that OK, but using it as a
>> benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
>> a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
>> Perhaps you can explain, rather than assert? Any power the council
>> holds (and, despite a few assertions, we DO have some power[2]) will
>> impact less on 99.9999% of the community than the chance of having
>> shiny, new, cheap device.
>
>
> I respect the council, please do not shift the focus of this conversation.
> I do not undermine its knowledge or the members that compose it. I was
> extremely proud and happy to hear the Maemo community was being given the
> chance to have a council. Yet, there is a huge difference between utilising
> an arbitrary number based on useless data gathered here and there to feed
> egos, and empowering trolls with a vote, by removing that vote from others.
> Yes, there, I said it. A troll has more chance of gathering karma than a
> silent user.
>
Fine, so we need to do something to stop the trolls. That doesn't mean that
silent users (leeches? outsiders? trolls? We can't tell!) should be handed
control, just because stopping them doesn't stop trolls.
>
>
> One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
>> cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
>> contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
>> filters, summarises and condenses it?
>
>
> Because I choose to work the cacophony (btw, nice opinion of what you're
> supposed to represent... Very.. Honorable, no, sorry that's not the right
> word, very condescending) in different manners than by blogging,
> incrementing my posts on itT, or yell about on this discussion list 24/7. I
> talk with people, about their views, about their choices. I talk about how
> they should brace themselves for the things that are to come, how to help
> their project going forward. Because I care about other aspects of this
> whole Maemo community which are most definitely not measurable by adding the
> bits stored in a database.
>
But how do you propose we distinguish between you and your ilk, who
apparently make this valuable but completely unmeasurable contribution, and
those who make no contribution at all? If it's really unmeasurable, we can't
measure it, so we have to throw those people out, or include even
deliberately disruptive users who make a new account with a clean email.
> [1] http://maemo.org/profile/view/crashanddie/
>
>
> Aye, and the only reason I have karma points is because I need to sometimes
> come here and reach out so that some people don't hurt themselves with their
> ignorance. Aye, I'm arrogant as well. At least I care to admit it.
>
> And even doing only that, you racked up almost double the current
requirement for karma. Since the world has no shortage of either ignorance
or karma, I expect people like you will be quite able to keep enough karma
in the future. So some people with even stealthier contributions might have
to actually go work on their karma to build it up; that doesn't seem so
horribly bad, and the alternative you present seems worse. (If you don't
think the possibility of outsiders causing grief in a maemo.org election is
realistic, you haven't been on teh intarwebs long enough. Some people will
do anything for lulz, if you know what I mean.)
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-03 23:53 UTC
2p:
for a long time I had no karma at all in this community.
Sure, visible participation is requested - but simply being a member is
enough.
There are many other routes outside the established channels to participate.
People pop up on different forums all the time "hi, long time member, first
time posting ....."
thats all :)
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Benson Mitchell
<benson.mitchell@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Sebastian 'CrashandDie' Lauwers <
> crashanddie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't give a toss about my karma. I just remember that the last time
>> this was discussed, I was disqualified from voting. Yet, I was more using
>> this as an example. We could have quite a few members who are silently
>> listening, and analysing what is happening in the community, and who do not
>> feel the need to voice their opinions, who do not blog, who do not like HTTP
>> forums. People like that are being banned from voting, just because they
>> don't express their opinion publicly?
>>
>> I don't recall any constitution requiring people to talk so that they
>> would be allowed to vote. It's not because one has the ability to talk that
>> they should be forced to.
>>
>
> If, by constitution, you're referring to constitutions of state3, they have
> citizens, and generally give their citizens (subject to some criteria), the
> right to vote. There's two possible analogs here for the karma requirement:
> there's generally a time limit required for naturalization, and there's an
> age limit for voting. FWIW, I see the former as more analogous, but they are
> both limits a potential voter must have fulfilled.
>
> Unlike states, which control land and can consider those born in that land
> as citizens from birth, the maemo community can have no native citizenry;
> every one starts as an outsider, a foreigner, with relatively limited
> rights. The reason we don't allow anyone to vote is the same reason a state
> does not allow anyone to vote, and the reason we don't allow anyone with a
> maemo.org account to vote is the same reason states don't allow anyone in
> their territory to vote.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
>>> karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
>>> future possible device programmes. Why is that OK, but using it as a
>>> benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
>>> a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
>>> Perhaps you can explain, rather than assert? Any power the council
>>> holds (and, despite a few assertions, we DO have some power[2]) will
>>> impact less on 99.9999% of the community than the chance of having
>>> shiny, new, cheap device.
>>
>>
>> I respect the council, please do not shift the focus of this conversation.
>> I do not undermine its knowledge or the members that compose it. I was
>> extremely proud and happy to hear the Maemo community was being given the
>> chance to have a council. Yet, there is a huge difference between utilising
>> an arbitrary number based on useless data gathered here and there to feed
>> egos, and empowering trolls with a vote, by removing that vote from others.
>> Yes, there, I said it. A troll has more chance of gathering karma than a
>> silent user.
>>
> Fine, so we need to do something to stop the trolls. That doesn't mean that
> silent users (leeches? outsiders? trolls? We can't tell!) should be handed
> control, just because stopping them doesn't stop trolls.
>
>>
>>
>> One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
>>> cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
>>> contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
>>> filters, summarises and condenses it?
>>
>>
>> Because I choose to work the cacophony (btw, nice opinion of what you're
>> supposed to represent... Very.. Honorable, no, sorry that's not the right
>> word, very condescending) in different manners than by blogging,
>> incrementing my posts on itT, or yell about on this discussion list 24/7. I
>> talk with people, about their views, about their choices. I talk about how
>> they should brace themselves for the things that are to come, how to help
>> their project going forward. Because I care about other aspects of this
>> whole Maemo community which are most definitely not measurable by adding the
>> bits stored in a database.
>>
>
> But how do you propose we distinguish between you and your ilk, who
> apparently make this valuable but completely unmeasurable contribution, and
> those who make no contribution at all? If it's really unmeasurable, we can't
> measure it, so we have to throw those people out, or include even
> deliberately disruptive users who make a new account with a clean email.
>
>
>> [1] http://maemo.org/profile/view/crashanddie/
>>
>>
>> Aye, and the only reason I have karma points is because I need to
>> sometimes come here and reach out so that some people don't hurt themselves
>> with their ignorance. Aye, I'm arrogant as well. At least I care to admit
>> it.
>>
>> And even doing only that, you racked up almost double the current
> requirement for karma. Since the world has no shortage of either ignorance
> or karma, I expect people like you will be quite able to keep enough karma
> in the future. So some people with even stealthier contributions might have
> to actually go work on their karma to build it up; that doesn't seem so
> horribly bad, and the alternative you present seems worse. (If you don't
> think the possibility of outsiders causing grief in a maemo.org election
> is realistic, you haven't been on teh intarwebs long enough. Some people
> will do anything for lulz, if you know what I mean.)
>
>
>
for a long time I had no karma at all in this community.
Sure, visible participation is requested - but simply being a member is
enough.
There are many other routes outside the established channels to participate.
People pop up on different forums all the time "hi, long time member, first
time posting ....."
thats all :)
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Benson Mitchell
<benson.mitchell@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Sebastian 'CrashandDie' Lauwers <
> crashanddie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't give a toss about my karma. I just remember that the last time
>> this was discussed, I was disqualified from voting. Yet, I was more using
>> this as an example. We could have quite a few members who are silently
>> listening, and analysing what is happening in the community, and who do not
>> feel the need to voice their opinions, who do not blog, who do not like HTTP
>> forums. People like that are being banned from voting, just because they
>> don't express their opinion publicly?
>>
>> I don't recall any constitution requiring people to talk so that they
>> would be allowed to vote. It's not because one has the ability to talk that
>> they should be forced to.
>>
>
> If, by constitution, you're referring to constitutions of state3, they have
> citizens, and generally give their citizens (subject to some criteria), the
> right to vote. There's two possible analogs here for the karma requirement:
> there's generally a time limit required for naturalization, and there's an
> age limit for voting. FWIW, I see the former as more analogous, but they are
> both limits a potential voter must have fulfilled.
>
> Unlike states, which control land and can consider those born in that land
> as citizens from birth, the maemo community can have no native citizenry;
> every one starts as an outsider, a foreigner, with relatively limited
> rights. The reason we don't allow anyone to vote is the same reason a state
> does not allow anyone to vote, and the reason we don't allow anyone with a
> maemo.org account to vote is the same reason states don't allow anyone in
> their territory to vote.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
>>> karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
>>> future possible device programmes. Why is that OK, but using it as a
>>> benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
>>> a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
>>> Perhaps you can explain, rather than assert? Any power the council
>>> holds (and, despite a few assertions, we DO have some power[2]) will
>>> impact less on 99.9999% of the community than the chance of having
>>> shiny, new, cheap device.
>>
>>
>> I respect the council, please do not shift the focus of this conversation.
>> I do not undermine its knowledge or the members that compose it. I was
>> extremely proud and happy to hear the Maemo community was being given the
>> chance to have a council. Yet, there is a huge difference between utilising
>> an arbitrary number based on useless data gathered here and there to feed
>> egos, and empowering trolls with a vote, by removing that vote from others.
>> Yes, there, I said it. A troll has more chance of gathering karma than a
>> silent user.
>>
> Fine, so we need to do something to stop the trolls. That doesn't mean that
> silent users (leeches? outsiders? trolls? We can't tell!) should be handed
> control, just because stopping them doesn't stop trolls.
>
>>
>>
>> One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
>>> cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
>>> contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
>>> filters, summarises and condenses it?
>>
>>
>> Because I choose to work the cacophony (btw, nice opinion of what you're
>> supposed to represent... Very.. Honorable, no, sorry that's not the right
>> word, very condescending) in different manners than by blogging,
>> incrementing my posts on itT, or yell about on this discussion list 24/7. I
>> talk with people, about their views, about their choices. I talk about how
>> they should brace themselves for the things that are to come, how to help
>> their project going forward. Because I care about other aspects of this
>> whole Maemo community which are most definitely not measurable by adding the
>> bits stored in a database.
>>
>
> But how do you propose we distinguish between you and your ilk, who
> apparently make this valuable but completely unmeasurable contribution, and
> those who make no contribution at all? If it's really unmeasurable, we can't
> measure it, so we have to throw those people out, or include even
> deliberately disruptive users who make a new account with a clean email.
>
>
>> [1] http://maemo.org/profile/view/crashanddie/
>>
>>
>> Aye, and the only reason I have karma points is because I need to
>> sometimes come here and reach out so that some people don't hurt themselves
>> with their ignorance. Aye, I'm arrogant as well. At least I care to admit
>> it.
>>
>> And even doing only that, you racked up almost double the current
> requirement for karma. Since the world has no shortage of either ignorance
> or karma, I expect people like you will be quite able to keep enough karma
> in the future. So some people with even stealthier contributions might have
> to actually go work on their karma to build it up; that doesn't seem so
> horribly bad, and the alternative you present seems worse. (If you don't
> think the possibility of outsiders causing grief in a maemo.org election
> is realistic, you haven't been on teh intarwebs long enough. Some people
> will do anything for lulz, if you know what I mean.)
>
>
>
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-03 23:58 UTC
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> 1) This is the fundamental problem with karma, and so the requirement
> should be scrapped.
I personally consider karma fine if Nokia is looking for some way to
determine who should be given a new device. I do not think karma should be
used to determine who may vote for the community council.
Having said this and having been using usenet/the internet for over 20
years, I do think there is a need to make sure the elections can (and
will) be run fair and just. It seems using karma is unavoidable in any
attempt to do so.
> 2) This is a minor hole in the current karma calculation you've
> identifed, and so someone should get points for being subscribed
> to a mailing list (n for being subscribed, 0.6n for being subscribed
> with the digest, say).
Would that be n points once? Or n points for every week/month/year? If
it is once n should be sufficiently large to make serious strides towards
the amount required for the elections. Otherwise there is no need to
bother implementing it.
(I'm leaning towards small n for a given timespan, that way there
is no need to retract karma if bounces occur or someone unsubscribes)
Best regards,
Jac
---
Jac Kersing Technical Consultant The-Box Development
j.kersing@the-box.com CISSP RHCE http://www.the-box.com
> 1) This is the fundamental problem with karma, and so the requirement
> should be scrapped.
I personally consider karma fine if Nokia is looking for some way to
determine who should be given a new device. I do not think karma should be
used to determine who may vote for the community council.
Having said this and having been using usenet/the internet for over 20
years, I do think there is a need to make sure the elections can (and
will) be run fair and just. It seems using karma is unavoidable in any
attempt to do so.
> 2) This is a minor hole in the current karma calculation you've
> identifed, and so someone should get points for being subscribed
> to a mailing list (n for being subscribed, 0.6n for being subscribed
> with the digest, say).
Would that be n points once? Or n points for every week/month/year? If
it is once n should be sufficiently large to make serious strides towards
the amount required for the elections. Otherwise there is no need to
bother implementing it.
(I'm leaning towards small n for a given timespan, that way there
is no need to retract karma if bounces occur or someone unsubscribes)
Best regards,
Jac
---
Jac Kersing Technical Consultant The-Box Development
j.kersing@the-box.com CISSP RHCE http://www.the-box.com
Re: Election process referendum
2009-02-04 08:00 UTC
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Andrew Flegg <andrew@bleb.org> wrote:
> 2) This is a minor hole in the current karma calculation you've
> identifed, and so someone should get points for being subscribed
> to a mailing list (n for being subscribed, 0.6n for being subscribed
> with the digest, say).
* number of months subscribed.
speaking as someone who was forced to unsubscribe from
maemo-developers (too spammy), people should be rewarded for sticking
around.
even this thread is getting too long too fast for my reading habits.
> 2) This is a minor hole in the current karma calculation you've
> identifed, and so someone should get points for being subscribed
> to a mailing list (n for being subscribed, 0.6n for being subscribed
> with the digest, say).
* number of months subscribed.
speaking as someone who was forced to unsubscribe from
maemo-developers (too spammy), people should be rewarded for sticking
around.
even this thread is getting too long too fast for my reading habits.
> come from?
Well we have ~900 voters and ~600 people (or apparently ~450 last election) with karma >25. Thus there must be ~300 people with less than 25 karma who voted last time. This is under the (unrealistic) assumption that 100% of the ~600 (or ~450) voters will actually vote/actually voted.
So last election at least half of the voters (presumably much more) did not have 25 karma. With the next election at least 1/3 of the people who did vote last time will not be able to vote this time (presumably much more).
Markus