This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You don’t list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after it’s ratified.
Not always, but often, making unpopular changes is precisely what the executive is being paid to do. Their job is to implement these changes, make sure that they are the one everyone gets upset with, and then take that anger with them when they leave.
This is definitely the most reasonable approach.
I agree with the direction you’re suggesting. I think it may also be helpful to identify a few key issues that would require more than a simple majority vote to overturn.
In particular, we’ve already gotten multiple posts on defederating from various instances, and on clearing our defederation list. My suggestion is that something like once per month we hold a vote on defederation issues. A 2/3 majority vote to defederate/refederate must be achieved to pass.
Well said. I think it’s a slippery slope to start de-federating with instances we find distasteful.
Aye. I’m concerned about bot presence on Lemmy because recent estimates place bot accounts as the vast majority of accounts on the networks. I worry that if we don’t take actions against bots now, we’ll come to regret it in the future.
Though OP never actually stated that the machine can perfectly predict the future. If that’s the case, then yes, you should just take box B. But we’re not given any information about how it makes its prediction. If @[email protected] is correct in assuming it’s a 50-50, then their strategy of taking both is best. It really depends on how the machine makes its prediction.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks!
That’s perhaps one of the better ways of doing it.
I’m seeing the desire for both verification of users (with accounts on this instance) and for the protection of anonymity. It’s possible to provide both those things at the same time, but I don’t see how we can do so on the native server.
Agreed. I think we need to separate the discussion from the vote. It’s confusing to have amendments take place on voting posts as discussion develops. We also need clear parameters on how to draft a vote and then how the vote gets resolved.
Thanks, friend!
Hey, it’s me! For what it’s worth, I’m excited to see this community grow and would be happy to be a part of the mod team helping guide it. Either way, I’m looking forward to seeing what’s next for this community. I don’t have a lot of experience with online moderation, but I do a lot of conflict resolution and strategy, which I feel are valuable skills for a moderator. If you choose me for a mod, I commit to helping make sure this instance and this community hold to their original vision of being friendly, chill, and democratic. I feel like I’ve already been able to bring some valuable contributions to the table, like the idea to use the [vote] format, and I believe I’ve got a lot more to offer the community. Thanks!
I’ll sometimes experience this, but it’s inconsistent. Other times I’ll be able to scroll as normal.
I’m new to moderating, but I’d be happy to give it a go. I can’t commit to being online 24/7, but I’m good at listening and conflict resolution, which I think are essential skills for a moderator.
I think that [discussion] preceding [vote] makes good sense. I’d add that [vote] posts should link to their respective [discussion] posts.
I agree that we shouldn’t assume corruption if TheDude starts receiving any funds, but I think it would be beneficial to have clear expectations about how donations are being used. If it’s clear that excess funds go straight into TheDude’s pockets, great. Let anyone who wants to donate go for it. But I wouldn’t want anyone to donate thinking that they’re supporting server costs when they’re actually just tipping someone. Whichever way it goes, it just needs to be clear.
11