Polly/Concept of Operation

Informal Discussion
People with Pseudonyms work through a process of Structured Disussion to transform issues into potential Policy and Action for Formal Voting. The goal should be for sufficient concensus to be achieved through this process, that the Formal Voting is just that; a formality.

Formal Voting
A variety of voting templates may be needed, depending on the type of decision to be voted upon. We should make it reasonably easy to extend the set of voting templates and algorithms. Some examples:
 * Voting a Person into a Role:
 * Structured as a ballot with candidates, preferential votes and evaluated using the Schulze Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method)
 * Quorum and majority thresholds may apply.
 * Voting for an Action or Actions:
 * Structured as a set of named People and Actions to be performed.
 * Vote Yes/No for the action to be upheld and supported by the party.
 * The named People must vote Yes for the vote to pass (can't vote to make someone do something against their will).
 * Votes may have a Reason attached. This may help to correct and reintroduce a failed Action vote.
 * Quorum and majority thresholds may apply.
 * Voting for a Policy:
 * Structured as a set of simple statements describing the Policy to be adopted.
 * Vote Yes/No for the action to be upheld and supported by the party.
 * Votes may have a Reason attached. This may help to correct and reintroduce a failed Policy vote.
 * Quorum and majority thresholds may apply.

On Startup - First View
First impressions are important and Transparency is a core value of our party, so the entry page to the system should be central hub of current high interest activity. Anybody and everybody should be able to see this without having to log on. They're just in anonymous browse mode. I envision that this main screen would be a tree view of the highest ranking informal discussion items, with one line per item with a 2D-Voting image drawn to the left of each, showing the current collective position. When any line item is selected, a list of the most active participants in that discussion (to the right of the screen) is populated. Allow participant list ordering by:
 * Delegated votes - therefore authority.
 * 2D-voting Concern - to find out who to engage with.
 * Alpha name - to find people

Presence
Once you decide to engage with the system, you need to log in as your unique primary identity. You may then activate one or more of your pseudonyms to start engaging with the system. This will indicate your presence in whatever roles that pseudonym has engaged and your willingness to engage in discussion.

Top Menu View
This is the central navigation point, with links to each major facility and is always shown at the top single line of the screen. The default pre-selected navigation direction is to the Discussion area. Selections include:
 * Discussion
 * Formal Voting
 * Delegation
 * Deals
 * Tracking and Statistics
 * Options
 * Customize your own environment
 * Add/Activate Pseudonyms

Discussion Tree View (AndrewD TODO: Draw a picture/mockup of this)
Lists Discussions - One line per item in a tree structure of issues/sub-issues. Each tree node shows:
 * +/- selector to open/close sub-discussions.
 * 2D-Voting image to the left showing collective voting position.
 * A cross-hair marker overlaid on the image that you can move to indicate your own vote.
 * Care/Agree dimensions need to be obviously indicated.
 * Discussion title
 * Participant/Presence Counters.
 * Links to persistent IRC Channels, Etherpad pages for detailed discussion.
 * Persistent IRC Channel means it's a proxy for regular IRC which maintains a 24/7 record of all conversation for all participants.
 * Counters on links show current active participants in these forums.
 * These links always open to a new tab.
 * Highlighted links to any related and active Formal Votes.
 * Links will be dimmed and unable to be selected if an administrator has blocked you from participation.
 * Quick Access links
 * Provide quick links to discussions you have participated in.
 * Listed across the top of the page in a single line.
 * First item is always a link back to the main list.
 * Rest of items are ordered by time of last access and/or most activity.
 * Participant List
 * Displayed to the right side of the screen, full length.
 * Displayed based on current selected Discussion Tree line/node.
 * Checking on/off of a presence filter to show only present participants or all.
 * Hide-able to increase screen reading real-estate for discussion lists.

Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT - pronounced 'mout')
You can view a prototype UI for MAUT at:  http://bbqsrc.github.com/maut/ This is a less obvious, but vital process. The objective is to achieve consensus on the resolution of issues identified during more informal discussion. The simple high level flow is:
 * Issue is created for consideration by creating a new MAUT.
 * Created by any individual member.
 * An Issue comprises:
 * A title for common reference purposes.
 * A brief description, plus an optional link to a full description page.
 * A link to the discussion tree branch where discussion of this issue is ongoing.
 * A counter of interested contributors and trigger mechanism for evaluation.
 * Each contributor may check a box to declare their interest.
 * Each contributor may check another box to indicate that they think the MAUT Proposals and Criteria are ready to go.
 * When a configurable percentage of contributors say it is ready to go, then a round of MAUT evaluation ensues.
 * Proposals are created to resolve the Issue.
 * Created by many individual members.
 * A Proposal comprises:
 * A title in the table column heading for common reference purposes and to link to a page with a full description of the Proposal.
 * A very short description to fit into the table headings
 * Negotiation in discussion areas is used to arrive at unique Proposals
 * If they can't agree on one Proposal, then create two to highlight the distinction.
 * If two proposals are the same, then remove one.
 * If the proposals are getting too big and complicated, break the Issue up into sub-Issues for more detailed consideration.
 * Criteria against which Issues will be judged.
 * Created by many individual members.
 * A Criterion comprises:
 * A title in the table row heading for common reference purposes.
 * A very short description to fit into the table row heading. Simple language.
 * Weights will be distributed across the criteria. This will be known per user and collectively.
 * Negotiation in discussion areas is used to arrive at unique Criteria
 * If they can't agree on one Criterion, then create two to highlight the distinction.
 * If two criteria are the same, then remove one.
 * If the criteria are getting too big and complicated, there should probably be more.
 * Evaluation happen when triggered (as described under Issue above)
 * For the evaluation period, all Proposals and Criteria are locked.

Currently, there is a strong delineation between active PPAU members and everyone else. I think we agree on this and that we'd like it to be better than that.

I refer you to: http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Polly/High_Level_Requirements#Principle:_.22Commensurate_Returns.22 This principle is not just about first contact with potential new members. It is about creating an easy progression of engagement and participation where each engagement with the party seems like only a slightly greater degree of difficulty but prepares them for the next. The objective of this principle is to increase member recruitment and subsequent actual participation. I envisage a "Commensurate Returns" progression like this:
 * 1) Member receives emails linking to a page where they can vote on pre-digested proposals. They're seeing the results of a lot of work. They don't know why the proposal is as-it-is, and they may be uncertain, but in their ignorance, the history so far suggests they will tend to just rubber stamp the recommendations. They do at least see the activity and can link to see more detail, but are unlikely to understand how the process works. On any voting page, we give them a check box to indicate that they'd like the option to engage a little earlier in the decision making process.
 * 2) Having checked the box above (or setting it in their user profile cos they're awesome like that), the member now receives emails linking to pages where MAUT's are happening prior to real voting. They choose MAUT's on proposals in areas that interest them, particularly the sort of issues that drew them to the party in the first place. They arrive at the MAUT, pre-formed. The Issue, Proposals and Criteria are already described. The MAUT process leads them through weighing up the various considerations:   - how criteria compare against each other  - how well each proposed solution rates against the criteria. Having done this, they get a feel for the decision process and the logical process of consideration. They should also start to see contradictions and/or omissions in the current criteria, proposals or definition of the issues. The tension created by such omissions and contradictions provide some impetus for them to engage deeper, but it's a big leap for most to start locking horns with the incumbent power users. They have a simpler alternative. Instead of filling out the MAUT that they believe to be flawed, they can check a box and write some text describing what they think is wrong. All such comments should be available along with the collective MAUT results. On any MAUT page, we give them a check box to indicate that they'd like to engage deeper in the decision making process.
 * 3) Having checked the box above (or setting it in their user profile cos they're awesome like that), the member now receives emails linking to a pages where MAUT's are being formed. They choose MAUT's on proposals in areas that interest them, particularly the sort of issues they have engaged with at the MAUT ranking stage above. They arrive at the MAUT, proposed, but un-formed. The Issue has a preliminary description(necessary for its creation), but Proposals and Criteria are absent or under construction. They contribute to and negotiate over Proposals, Criteria and further definition of the Issue. The MAUT construction process leads them through:   - the negotiation process   - working with MAUT mediators.   - discussions with other experienced members   - learning the guidelines for the proposals and criteria should be structured (neutral tense, non-partisan, evidence linked and backed etc.) Having done this for a while, they become confident in their knowledge of how to create a well structured MAUT that will stand. On the MAUT construction pages, there are links or menu options to:   - propose your own Issue (free to anyone).   - become a MAUT mediator (needs sponsor and acceptance by some proportion of existing mediators).