Main problem with proposals

General discussion of Matchism.
Post Reply
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:28 pm

Main problem with proposals

Post by pdublin » Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:21 am

I feel there needs to be a more direct line of what the proposal is actually doing. A lot of these listed ones I want to agree with but I'm just not sure exactly what I'm voting on. There's 'abstract' and 'justification', there's no 'official' in the proposal. The lines that will be changed in the law books or whatever, some official wording. And if it's just a general idea, then list it as that 'Society agrees, we should be working on more on ___". We need to know the exact wording of what we're voting on.

Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Main problem with proposals

Post by metamerman » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:27 pm

Welcome to the world of Social Engineering! Although most bills passed by local/state/national governments are far longer than these, in most cases they still have holes you can drive a bus through. Worse, most of the proposals on are things that have either not been addressed at all or have been decided by the courts or the executive branch and so there is no unified description of even the intent (Justification) of the social engineering behind them. But then, this is the way government *actually* works vs. the way it's supposed to work in theory: All The People (or at least the legislators) are really doing is specifying roughly what they want and the executive and judicial branches then fight over what the right way to implement it is.

Bottom line is, don't worry about it: If after approval the implementation isn't what you (we) expected it to be and/or if there are holes in the specification, we'll iterate on the proposal. Unlike current systems, versioning is built in to this system and redoing a vote is a very straightforward matter: All your votes and posts and cites are preserved so all you'll need to do is confirm that they still apply to the new version. If the proposal seems roughly correct, vote "yes" and then voice your concerns in a post or send them to the proposer using the Q & A form so that they can be addressed in future versions.

A useful model might be software engineering: The Waterfall model (develop a full spec, then fully implement, then deploy), which is the way business apps were developed 30 years ago and which is the way government (at least supposedly) currently works, is almost never used in software development anymore because it results in bad designs and oftentimes complete project failure. is more like Agile software development, where you get something roughly working out ASAP and then tweak it to iteratively and gradually conform to ever-evolving requirements. A longer design/specification is not better in this environment, and in fact is usually worse: You end up just wasting time designing and implementing features that turn out not to be important or that are a poor fit for the way people actually interact with them. Worse, at least with government, is that you end up with such long-winded proposals that the people voting on them stop bothering to even read them all the way through and really bad stuff gets included in laws that are then very hard to change.

BTW: There is a "Full Text" tab on some of the proposals, where it is needed. There are many proposals in the incoming queue that have even more specifics, but it seemed better to start with more manageable proposals than to jump right in with taxation etc.

Post Reply