Those in favor reply “Aye”

Those against reply “Nay”

  • TheDude@sh.itjust.worksM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looks like this decision is decided already but I figured I’d put in my input. Given this instance has an open registration policy, nothing is stopping someone from another instance to create an alternative just for voting on this instance. This individual might align and contribute positively to the fediverse and have really great ideas and contributions to discussions here. However because they use their alt account here on sh.itjust.works only for voting, their vote might get dismissed due to poor account reputation (another issue that I believe was already brought up in another post). The fediverse is meant to be a decentralized community and by forcing people to need to join this community to vote promotes centralization which I believe is the opposite of what the fediverse is trying to accomplish. I guess for now I’ll hold off on casting my vote until the community determines what criteria should be considered when counting a vote.

    • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get what you mean, but if this is the forum for discussing how this instance is run, then I think at the very least, the opinions and views of those with accounts based on this instance should weigh more than those from elsewhere. They have their own instances to take an active role in, and if they find the direct-democracy aspect of sh.itjust.works, they should have their “main” account here. There’s been a long-requested feature to allow account instance migration a la Mastodon style, making such a weighting or restriction more equitable.

    • StarNyte@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they’re willing to put in the bare minimum of making an account and voting then I think that’s okay.

      • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I could see this being a vulnerability though, there are people out there who would want to game democratic systems - particularly for hot-button issues, from real-life politics to defederating Meta.

  • jarek91@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nay. I feel this suggestion is based in the old centralized platform mentality. That isn’t to say it is wrong, but it seems based in a premise that does not apply to a federated platform. If you start thinking about how a federated platform actually works, I could join this community…and others on this instance…from an account on another server. Why would we treat someone as second class citizens for using the Fediverse in the way it was intended?

    For those thinking “they can just make an account here if they want to vote”, you are right. They could. But that also goes back to centralist mentality. We want to be able to interact with people and communities regardless of which instance houses the data object that is my account. From that perspective, I feel voting should be more inclusive than just those who have a user object stored on this instance.

    My question back to you would be, what problem are you trying to solve by this limitation? I’m sure there are any number of hurdles we will need to address with open voting, but we have to identify those problems first.

    • tcely@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t want people who haven’t agreed to follow the same set of rules deciding what the rules are that I must follow.

      It’s like how much of the world decided it didn’t enjoy colonial rule so much.

  • zuprob@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aye, it is better to start with being more restrictive; especially with an influx of new accounts. If in practice it is not achieving the desired goal of hindering bad actors we can try something else. that being said the only way to see the actual benefit is to try. Perhaps try it for a month with a vote at the end to make the rule permanent?