Quote from: beLiefs on November 17, 2015, 02:33:29 AM

Quote from: SuperClam on November 16, 2015, 10:59:35 PM

Further, though this petition process is not binding and serves to inform development, in a way it IS publicly binding.
The results of petitions will be public and transparent.
They will signify a provable sentiment of the stakeholders of CLAM.
In the corporate world, how long does an executive retain their position if they ignore the mandates of shareholders?
If support is established publicly for a change and an alternative client is released which implements that change..
That alternative client, by definition, would likely be adopted.
This is regardless of the "tyranny" of the development team.

It isn't perfect; but, this gives the community a voice without the concern for "shills" and non-stakeholder manipulation.
I can think of no better way to inform development energy and direction.

I would ask that certain decisions require more than a majority to offset the short comings of democracy -- to protect Clam against those who care more for themselves than ideas. Something like a change to the core as is being considered here should be unanimous IMO, or require a two-thirds majority at the very minimum.

There are at least two different issues at hand:
1. Is there a default vote? How are unvoting blocks counted?
2. Do we consider a majority as enough? A super-majority? Complete consensus?

Complete consensus is a non-starter, in my opinion.
One can not expect the entire network to vote at all, let alone support ANYTHING.
In that case, have a good day; no development team is needed at all.

The debate about default votes and what is considered a majority are underway at the moment.

I personally believe that a rather long rolling window with "No Change" as the default vote would make the most sense. This allows anyone to propose a petition and over time rally support for that change.

I would also argue that we do not require too large of a majority, lest we get nothing done whatsoever.

Regardless, the specifics haven't been worked out yet.
Only a passing agreement that allowing the network to voice their opinions in a verifiable way is the best, unified way forward.

Quote from: jaysabi on November 17, 2015, 02:49:11 AM

Quote from: SuperClam on November 17, 2015, 01:27:03 AM

We prefer to target our development energies towards propositions which have a likelihood for support.
I don't think that is unreasonable.
In fact, I think it is the only way forward that is "fair" and makes any sense whatsoever.

I can only speak for myself, not anyone else voicing opposition to changes. From the perspective that you have determined to make changes, obviously to be successful you have to target the propositions which have a likelihood for support. So yes, I agree with you that this is reasonable, but that doesn't mean it's fair. Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny. For me, the issue is that people want to change the rules because they don't like the benefit that one person (or a small number of people) are deriving from the rules as they stand, and that arbitrary determination undermines the legitimacy of the system. It may be politically popular to take away someone else's rights, but that's not fair.

It very well may.
Thank the Great CLAM this system is designed to move methodically.
Those paying attention will have plenty of time to realize that they do not agree with the opinion of others in the network.
That leaves them plenty of time to choose a network with which they have more in common.
Or, alternatively, evangelize and convince their peers otherwise.