Proposal for a new Voting System

[virtual_master]

I propose a new voting system at least on topics where we don't come forward otherwise.
(For ex. the value field length. or the fee system was discussed so long without a final agreement.)
Every time there should be only 2 options which can be split later in other options.
Every option should have a donation address and which option receives more has won.
Then it will be splitted and will be continued.
Of course every option should be reasonable and have some arguments on its side.
For the value field size:
1.5k (1k GPG key+ 0.5) ............... donation address
2.5k ( 2k GPG key + 0.5) or more .......... donation address
(if wins will be splitted) ->
2.5k ( 2k GPG key + 0.5) .......... donation address
4.6k ( 4k GPG key + 0.5) or more .......... donation address
(if wins will be eventually splitted) ->
4.6k ( 4k GPG key + 0.5) .......... donation address
8.7k ( 2x4k GPG key + 0.5) .......... donation address

The donations would be used exclusively to fund the voted development.
We could elaborate a similar step by step voting for the fee system with reasonable options.

What do you think ?

[Ben]

It's an interesting idea but I don't like it because it means whoever is richest can buyout an option and have it done their way, even if their way is not the best way. It would be like having a general election where your vote's weight is proportional to your salary.

[biolizard89]

It's an interesting idea but I don't like it because it means whoever is richest can buyout an option and have it done their way, even if their way is not the best way. It would be like having a general election where your vote's weight is proportional to your salary.

Agreed; technical discussions should be based on technical merit, not whoever is willing to throw more money at a debate.

[indolering]

Agreed; technical discussions should be based on technical merit, not whoever is willing to throw more money at a debate.

Even if money wasn't involved, there are times when averaging the votes just doesn't make any sense. The current proposal to increase the record size is silly as no-one (even the id/ developer) wants to increase the size. I think it should be treated as a security threat and not subject to a vote until after we have implemented encryption.

[virtual_master]

The value field size was just brought as example. Here is going about how to solve a discussion where with technical arguments we cannot come to an agreement and all options have their legitimate arguments.
It would solve the debate non-technically but measured with the zeal of the participants and would deliver some founds for the development.
Giving a bounty for a development is also an influencing with money and this would add just another aspect even if it is not a very usual form.

[indolering]

The value field size was just brought as example. Here is going about how to solve a discussion where with technical arguments we cannot come to an agreement and all options have their legitimate arguments.
It would solve the debate non-technically but measured with the zeal of the participants and would deliver some founds for the development.
Giving a bounty for a development is also an influencing with money and this would add just another aspect even if it is not a very usual form.

Oh, right, weighted votes, I LOVE that idea. It would let us show how much we really care so if I haven't given much thought to something I can say that it just seems reasonable.

We use a version of that in usability engineering where we make a grid of features x user types and give everyone on a team (devs, management, marketing, etc) 100 points each. Then we ask them to assign points to each user/feature. It's great because it gets everyone on the same page about how important users and the feature is regardless of the department. Otherwise you get websites which simply reflect corporate structure ... it's like organizing a menu by what part of the kitchen it is prepped in.