commissions voting process

Posted by Francis Hwang | Thu Dec 11th 2003 3:06 p.m.

Hi everybody:

As you may know, we're going to be involving the Rhizome members in the
voting process for the 2004 Net Art Commissions. Below is a first draft
of this process, and I'd appreciate any comments on it.

The below is just a draft; nothing is fixed at this point. We're open
to comments on any part of the process described below. I'd appreciate
it if readers gave special consideration to the following issues:

1. The filtering process.
We will probably receive more than 100 entries, and we want to filter
this down to (say) 25 finalists. It is unreasonable to expect everybody
to read all 100 proposals, so we need to design a system that allows
participants to read a small percentage of those proposals and vote on
those. The available literature says very little about this sort of a
system, even though the recent California recall probably had the same
problem. The "INITIAL STAGE" system below is entirely of my own
invention; any opinions on it would be appreciated.

2. Discretion and sensitivity to proposals
It's important to us that people be considerate of all the proposals
submitted. In an open call such as this we're going to be receiving
proposals at widely varying levels of quality, professionalism, and
experience. We want to make sure that we don't have a situation where
artists feel like their proposals are being publically criticized in a
way that is insensitive or unfair. (Note that this problem is one of
the added complications with a more open process; if you just have a
jury meeting in a conference room or over a small email list you can be
much more candid.) We want to make sure that no artist feels
intimidated by the process, either for this round or for any
Commissions in the future. Any suggestions as to how to foster the most
constructive discussions would be appreciated.

3. Implementation time
The chances are good that I am going to have to implement this by
scratch. So to any changes I reserve the right to put on my Cranky
Techie hat and say "That's not gonna happen." Any proposals for changes
to the process described below should not make things any more
complicated. Simpler is better.

BTW, if you're interested in poli-sci geekery you might check out the
"Alternative Voting Systems" paper I read when thinking about this:
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/altvote.html

Francis
----------
The Rhizome.org 2004 Net Art Commissions will award five new net art
projects with commissions ranging from $1,500 to $3,500. We are
interested in having a relatively open decision-making process that
gives community members a substantial say in these awards while also
retaining a traditional voting role for the Commissions jury.

VOTING ELIGIBILITY
To be eligible to vote in the Commissions process, you need to be a
Rhizome member in good standing. In addition, to prevent people from
signing up at the last minute solely for the purpose of influencing the
result, only Rhizome members with accounts that were created before
August 15, 2003 may vote. (There are currently more than 28000 user
accounts in the Rhizome system that were created before that date.)

Each Rhizome member should only vote once, regardless of how many valid
memberships that person may have. We reserve the right to eliminate any
votes if we believe that they come from a member who is voting with
more than one membership.

INITIAL STAGE
Rhizome's first Commissioning Program, the 2002 cycle, received more
than 100 entries. We expect this Commissioning Program to receive at
least the same number of entries.

Rhizome community members will choose finalists from this initial pool.
They will be asked to vote Yes or No for any and all proposals, and
will be able to change their votes at any time in the initial stage.
Although members will be able to vote on any proposal at any time, they
will also be given an interface that encourages them to review
proposals with the least number of votes, so that all proposals will
receive roughly the same number of votes.

Under this system, no member will be required to review all the
proposals. However, the more proposals you vote for, the more influence
you will have over which proposals proceed to the final stage.

At the end of the first stage, each proposal will be ranked according
to the percentage of Yes votes it receives. For example, a proposal
which receives 10 Yes votes will be ranked at 100%, and a proposal that
receives 15 Yes votes and 5 No votes will be ranked at 75%. The highest
ranking 25 proposals will move on to the final stage; this may be more
than 25 in the case of ties.

The initial stage will last from February 15 to February 29, 2004.

FINAL STAGE
In the final stage, both Rhizome members and the jury will choose
awardees based on the pool of 25 or more finalists. Rhizome members
will choose one of the five awards; the jury will choose the remaining
four.

The final stage will last from March 1 to March 15, 2004.

FINAL STAGE: RHIZOME MEMBERS
From the 25 or more finalists, Rhizome members will be able to choose
one of the five awards. The voting system used for the final stage will
be Single Transferable Vote, also known as Instant Runoff Voting. Each
voter will rank the proposals from most favorite to least favorite.
When the votes are tallied, the first-place votes are counted to see if
any proposal has received more than 50% of the votes. If so, then that
proposal is the winner. Otherwise, the proposal with the least
first-place votes is removed from the list of proposals, and the
process is repeated.

For example: Five voters have to choose one winning proposal among four
candidates: a, b, c, and d. They vote as follows:

Maximilian: abc
Lukas: acb
Niklas: bca
Jurgen: bac
Hans: cab

In the first round, a gets 2 votes, b gets 2, and c gets 1. Nobody has
the majority (3), so we remove the least popular candidate, c, making
Hans' vote effectively "ab". Now a gets 3 votes and b gets 2 votes, and
a is the winner.

Voters are not required to rank all final proposals, but they are
encouraged to rank as many as possible. If you rank only a few
candidates, it's possible that your vote will end up being eliminated
entirely in the final tally.

In the event that the jury feels that the members' first-place choice
will require a disproportionately large amount of the commission funds,
we reserve the right to substitute a choice further down the members'
list.

FINAL STAGE: JURY
The jury consists of German critic Tilman Baumgartel, artist Natalie
Bookchin of CalArts, Rachel Greene of Rhizome.org, Francis Hwang of
Rhizome.org, and Japanese curator Yukiko Shikata. This jury will be
responsible for choosing four of the five awards.

The jury will decide on four awards, with one more on deck in case
there is overlap with the Rhizome members' choice. The process for this
will be much less formal. Maybe it will involve monkeys.

DISCUSSION
At all phases of the process, we encourage and expect open discussion
of the proposals, both on Rhizome and elsewhere online. We hope that
this discussion will be respectful and considerate of all the artists
involved.
  • ana boa-ventura | Thu Dec 11th 2003 7:48 p.m.
    Francis,

    I want to compliment you on this document: it's excellent! I have only
    one doubt.
    When you say:
    > For example, a proposal which receives 10 Yes votes will be ranked >at 100%, and a proposal that receives 15 Yes votes and 5 No votes >will be ranked at 75%.

    Does this mean that i can vote "yes" , "no" or express "no opinion" for
    piece X? In which case it is the ratio of "yes" versus "no" for that
    particular piece that counts? Hmmm. If this is so the only thing that i
    thought we should be aware of - and may come up in the discussion - is
    a bit like the unreliability of studies based on voluntary surveys. You're only going to answer if you feel strongly about whatever is covered there - if you loved it or hated it you'll answer . If you're just ok with it you probably won't.

    Doesn't this yes/no proportion have implications there? But then again, is there a better alternative? I really don't know - just wanted to alert y'all to possible consequences of:
    1- allowing people to choose the pieces they're saying somethig about it (i'm sure it would be a nigthmare but maybe you could assign works to people? guess the interface encouraging you to vote on the ones that haven't voted yet could be the solution - and i'm curious about it.:))
    2- having the ratio yes/no to influence the overall result as opposed
    to yes only.

    All the best and kudos on the description of the voting process!

    Ana Boa-Ventura

    *****************************
    Francis Hwang wrote:

    > Hi everybody:
    >
    > As you may know, we're going to be involving the Rhizome members in
    > the
    > voting process for the 2004 Net Art Commissions. Below is a first
    > draft
    > of this process, and I'd appreciate any comments on it.
    >
    > The below is just a draft; nothing is fixed at this point. We're open
    > to comments on any part of the process described below. I'd
    > appreciate
    > it if readers gave special consideration to the following issues:
    >
    > 1. The filtering process.
    > We will probably receive more than 100 entries, and we want to filter
    > this down to (say) 25 finalists. It is unreasonable to expect
    > everybody
    > to read all 100 proposals, so we need to design a system that allows
    > participants to read a small percentage of those proposals and vote
    > on
    > those. The available literature says very little about this sort of a
    > system, even though the recent California recall probably had the
    > same
    > problem. The "INITIAL STAGE" system below is entirely of my own
    > invention; any opinions on it would be appreciated.
    >
    > 2. Discretion and sensitivity to proposals
    > It's important to us that people be considerate of all the proposals
    > submitted. In an open call such as this we're going to be receiving
    > proposals at widely varying levels of quality, professionalism, and
    > experience. We want to make sure that we don't have a situation where
    > artists feel like their proposals are being publically criticized in
    > a
    > way that is insensitive or unfair. (Note that this problem is one of
    > the added complications with a more open process; if you just have a
    > jury meeting in a conference room or over a small email list you can
    > be
    > much more candid.) We want to make sure that no artist feels
    > intimidated by the process, either for this round or for any
    > Commissions in the future. Any suggestions as to how to foster the
    > most
    > constructive discussions would be appreciated.
    >
    > 3. Implementation time
    > The chances are good that I am going to have to implement this by
    > scratch. So to any changes I reserve the right to put on my Cranky
    > Techie hat and say "That's not gonna happen." Any proposals for
    > changes
    > to the process described below should not make things any more
    > complicated. Simpler is better.
    >
    > BTW, if you're interested in poli-sci geekery you might check out the
    > "Alternative Voting Systems" paper I read when thinking about this:
    > http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/altvote.html
    >
    > Francis
    > ----------
    > The Rhizome.org 2004 Net Art Commissions will award five new net art
    > projects with commissions ranging from $1,500 to $3,500. We are
    > interested in having a relatively open decision-making process that
    > gives community members a substantial say in these awards while also
    > retaining a traditional voting role for the Commissions jury.
    >
    > VOTING ELIGIBILITY
    > To be eligible to vote in the Commissions process, you need to be a
    > Rhizome member in good standing. In addition, to prevent people from
    > signing up at the last minute solely for the purpose of influencing
    > the
    > result, only Rhizome members with accounts that were created before
    > August 15, 2003 may vote. (There are currently more than 28000 user
    > accounts in the Rhizome system that were created before that date.)
    >
    > Each Rhizome member should only vote once, regardless of how many
    > valid
    > memberships that person may have. We reserve the right to eliminate
    > any
    > votes if we believe that they come from a member who is voting with
    > more than one membership.
    >
    > INITIAL STAGE
    > Rhizome's first Commissioning Program, the 2002 cycle, received more
    > than 100 entries. We expect this Commissioning Program to receive at
    > least the same number of entries.
    >
    > Rhizome community members will choose finalists from this initial
    > pool.
    > They will be asked to vote Yes or No for any and all proposals, and
    > will be able to change their votes at any time in the initial stage.
    > Although members will be able to vote on any proposal at any time,
    > they
    > will also be given an interface that encourages them to review
    > proposals with the least number of votes, so that all proposals will
    > receive roughly the same number of votes.
    >
    > Under this system, no member will be required to review all the
    > proposals. However, the more proposals you vote for, the more
    > influence
    > you will have over which proposals proceed to the final stage.
    >
    > At the end of the first stage, each proposal will be ranked according
    > to the percentage of Yes votes it receives. For example, a proposal
    > which receives 10 Yes votes will be ranked at 100%, and a proposal
    > that
    > receives 15 Yes votes and 5 No votes will be ranked at 75%. The
    > highest
    > ranking 25 proposals will move on to the final stage; this may be
    > more
    > than 25 in the case of ties.
    >
    > The initial stage will last from February 15 to February 29, 2004.
    >
    > FINAL STAGE
    > In the final stage, both Rhizome members and the jury will choose
    > awardees based on the pool of 25 or more finalists. Rhizome members
    > will choose one of the five awards; the jury will choose the
    > remaining
    > four.
    >
    > The final stage will last from March 1 to March 15, 2004.
    >
    > FINAL STAGE: RHIZOME MEMBERS
    > From the 25 or more finalists, Rhizome members will be able to
    > choose
    > one of the five awards. The voting system used for the final stage
    > will
    > be Single Transferable Vote, also known as Instant Runoff Voting.
    > Each
    > voter will rank the proposals from most favorite to least favorite.
    > When the votes are tallied, the first-place votes are counted to see
    > if
    > any proposal has received more than 50% of the votes. If so, then
    > that
    > proposal is the winner. Otherwise, the proposal with the least
    > first-place votes is removed from the list of proposals, and the
    > process is repeated.
    >
    > For example: Five voters have to choose one winning proposal among
    > four
    > candidates: a, b, c, and d. They vote as follows:
    >
    > Maximilian: abc
    > Lukas: acb
    > Niklas: bca
    > Jurgen: bac
    > Hans: cab
    >
    > In the first round, a gets 2 votes, b gets 2, and c gets 1. Nobody
    > has
    > the majority (3), so we remove the least popular candidate, c, making
    > Hans' vote effectively "ab". Now a gets 3 votes and b gets 2 votes,
    > and
    > a is the winner.
    >
    > Voters are not required to rank all final proposals, but they are
    > encouraged to rank as many as possible. If you rank only a few
    > candidates, it's possible that your vote will end up being eliminated
    > entirely in the final tally.
    >
    > In the event that the jury feels that the members' first-place choice
    > will require a disproportionately large amount of the commission
    > funds,
    > we reserve the right to substitute a choice further down the members'
    > list.
    >
    > FINAL STAGE: JURY
    > The jury consists of German critic Tilman Baumgartel, artist Natalie
    > Bookchin of CalArts, Rachel Greene of Rhizome.org, Francis Hwang of
    > Rhizome.org, and Japanese curator Yukiko Shikata. This jury will be
    > responsible for choosing four of the five awards.
    >
    > The jury will decide on four awards, with one more on deck in case
    > there is overlap with the Rhizome members' choice. The process for
    > this
    > will be much less formal. Maybe it will involve monkeys.
    >
    > DISCUSSION
    > At all phases of the process, we encourage and expect open discussion
    > of the proposals, both on Rhizome and elsewhere online. We hope that
    > this discussion will be respectful and considerate of all the artists
    > involved.
    >
  • Matthew Mascotte | Fri Dec 12th 2003 1 p.m.
    hey. i like your approach and the
    process. but i feel excluded because
    i joined in october 2003. i very much
    want to partcipate in this process. please
    reconsider the cut off date.

    regards,

    matthew f. mascotte
  • Francis Hwang | Fri Dec 12th 2003 3:42 p.m.
    On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 06:48 PM, ana boa-ventura wrote:

    > Francis,
    >
    > I want to compliment you on this document: it's excellent! I have only
    > one doubt.
    > When you say:
    >> For example, a proposal which receives 10 Yes votes will be ranked
    >> >at 100%, and a proposal that receives 15 Yes votes and 5 No votes
    >> >will be ranked at 75%.
    >
    > Does this mean that i can vote "yes" , "no" or express "no opinion" for
    > piece X? In which case it is the ratio of "yes" versus "no" for that
    > particular piece that counts? Hmmm. If this is so the only thing that i
    > thought we should be aware of - and may come up in the discussion - is
    > a bit like the unreliability of studies based on voluntary surveys.
    > You're only going to answer if you feel strongly about whatever is
    > covered there - if you loved it or hated it you'll answer . If
    > you're just ok with it you probably won't.

    I imagined that you could only vote "yes" or "no". You can't vote "no
    opinion", though you can simply choose not to vote on a particular
    proposal.

    It is true that this voting system will be weighted towards those who
    feel strongly about the process and various proposals. I think that's
    generally true of all voting systems, though. I wouldn't be surprised
    if the core group of voters is only about 100 or 200 die-hards, though
    I'd love it if everybody voted. I'm only concerned if this would
    disadvantage individual pieces against others, but I have a hard time
    imagining how it would do that.

    I'm less concerned about the cases where each proposal gets, say, 100
    votes. The wierd cases will be if not a lot of people vote and a
    proposal gets just 1 vote. Then its score can only be 100% or 0%. Not
    sure how to counteract that effect, other than to try to design the
    interface in such a way that the proposal with the least votes pops up
    at the top of the list.

    > Doesn't this yes/no proportion have implications there? But then
    > again, is there a better alternative? I really don't know - just
    > wanted to alert y'all to possible consequences of:
    > 1- allowing people to choose the pieces they're saying somethig about
    > it (i'm sure it would be a nigthmare but maybe you could assign works
    > to people? guess the interface encouraging you to vote on the ones
    > that haven't voted yet could be the solution - and i'm curious about
    > it.:))
    > 2- having the ratio yes/no to influence the overall result as opposed
    > to yes only.
    >
    > All the best and kudos on the description of the voting process!
    >
    > Ana Boa-Ventura
  • Francis Hwang | Fri Dec 12th 2003 3:42 p.m.
    A good point. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to make the cutoff point
    something much later, like December 1.

    F.

    On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 12:00 PM, Matthew Mascotte wrote:

    > hey. i like your approach and the
    > process. but i feel excluded because
    > i joined in october 2003. i very much
    > want to partcipate in this process. please
    > reconsider the cut off date.
    >
    > regards,
    >
    > matthew f. mascotte
  • Gita Hashemi | Fri Dec 12th 2003 3:59 p.m.
    At 3:19 PM -0500 12/11/03, Francis Hwang wrote:
    >
    >For example: Five voters have to choose one winning proposal among four
    >candidates: a, b, c, and d. They vote as follows:
    >
    >Maximilian: abc
    >Lukas: acb
    >Niklas: bca
    >Jurgen: bac
    >Hans: cab

    Questions:

    Would the voters have to be European- and male-identified?
    a. no
    b. this is a stupid question
    c. yes

    Or, do we simply don't care about these things any longer?
    a. no
    b. i said, this is a stupid question
    c. yes

    Or, is this simply a stupid question?
    a. no
    b. look, i told you, this really is a stupid question
    c. yes

    Respectfully,

    Gita Hashemi
    Member for some time
    Vote: abc
    No, wait. Maybe: cab
    Although, I could also go with: bca
    What do these votes mean anyway?
    Democracy?
  • Francis Hwang | Fri Dec 12th 2003 5:35 p.m.
    Let's be specific: They're not just European men, they're German men.
    Why is that?

    a: Because human names are more interesting than labels like "Voting
    Automoton Alpha", "Beta", "Delta", etc.
    b: Francis thought that the poli-sci geekery could be lightened up with
    a little levity, or, in pseudo Valley-Girl parlance, something "totally
    random".
    c: Christmas-time stress makes Francis sexually frustrated and maybe
    he's got some odd sexual fetish that he should keep to himself.
    d: Because deep down inside Francis wants to be a German man.
    e: He chose that category at random, and next time he writes a similar
    document he promises to use names of half-Korean transsexuals.
    f: Monkey.

    Yours,
    F.

    On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 02:59 PM, Gita Hashemi wrote:

    > At 3:19 PM -0500 12/11/03, Francis Hwang wrote:
    >>
    >> For example: Five voters have to choose one winning proposal among
    >> four
    >> candidates: a, b, c, and d. They vote as follows:
    >>
    >> Maximilian: abc
    >> Lukas: acb
    >> Niklas: bca
    >> Jurgen: bac
    >> Hans: cab
    >
    >
    >
    > Questions:
    >
    > Would the voters have to be European- and male-identified?
    > a. no
    > b. this is a stupid question
    > c. yes
    >
    > Or, do we simply don't care about these things any longer?
    > a. no
    > b. i said, this is a stupid question
    > c. yes
    >
    > Or, is this simply a stupid question?
    > a. no
    > b. look, i told you, this really is a stupid question
    > c. yes
    >
    >
    > Respectfully,
    >
    > Gita Hashemi
    > Member for some time
    > Vote: abc
    > No, wait. Maybe: cab
    > Although, I could also go with: bca
    > What do these votes mean anyway?
    > Democracy?
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Rob Myers | Fri Dec 12th 2003 5:59 p.m.
    We should vote in Lisp.

    So the candidates would be

    (setq candidates
    (cons Maximillian
    (cons Lukas
    (cons Niklas
    (cons Jurgen
    (cons Hans nil))))))

    And we could vote by saying

    '('caddr 'caddddr 'cadr)

    - Rob.

    On 12 Dec 2003, at 19:59, Gita Hashemi wrote:

    > Member for some time
    > Vote: abc
    > No, wait. Maybe: cab
    > Although, I could also go with: bca
  • Pall Thayer | Fri Dec 12th 2003 6:17 p.m.
    How about voting with a lisp:

    Maxthimilian theeaybee
    Lukath aytheebee
    Niklath etc....

    Pall
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Rob Myers" <robmyers@mac.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:59 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: commissions voting process

    > We should vote in Lisp.
    >
    > So the candidates would be
    >
    > (setq candidates
    > (cons Maximillian
    > (cons Lukas
    > (cons Niklas
    > (cons Jurgen
    > (cons Hans nil))))))
    >
    > And we could vote by saying
    >
    > '('caddr 'caddddr 'cadr)
    >
    > - Rob.
    >
    > On 12 Dec 2003, at 19:59, Gita Hashemi wrote:
    >
    > > Member for some time
    > > Vote: abc
    > > No, wait. Maybe: cab
    > > Although, I could also go with: bca
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Michael Szpakowski | Fri Dec 12th 2003 6:28 p.m.
    Actually what might be really interesting and remove
    it from the level of tokenism is if the *entire* jury
    was elected by the paid up rhizome community.
    ( and perhaps if the subject of the commissions was
    decided similarly too)
    michael

    --- Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org> wrote:
    >
    > On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 06:48 PM, ana
    > boa-ventura wrote:
    >
    > > Francis,
    > >
    > > I want to compliment you on this document: it's
    > excellent! I have only
    > > one doubt.
    > > When you say:
    > >> For example, a proposal which receives 10 Yes
    > votes will be ranked
    > >> >at 100%, and a proposal that receives 15 Yes
    > votes and 5 No votes
    > >> >will be ranked at 75%.
    > >
    > > Does this mean that i can vote "yes" , "no" or
    > express "no opinion" for
    > > piece X? In which case it is the ratio of "yes"
    > versus "no" for that
    > > particular piece that counts? Hmmm. If this is so
    > the only thing that i
    > > thought we should be aware of - and may come up in
    > the discussion - is
    > > a bit like the unreliability of studies based on
    > voluntary surveys.
    > > You're only going to answer if you feel strongly
    > about whatever is
    > > covered there - if you loved it or hated it
    > you'll answer . If
    > > you're just ok with it you probably won't.
    >
    > I imagined that you could only vote "yes" or "no".
    > You can't vote "no
    > opinion", though you can simply choose not to vote
    > on a particular
    > proposal.
    >
    > It is true that this voting system will be weighted
    > towards those who
    > feel strongly about the process and various
    > proposals. I think that's
    > generally true of all voting systems, though. I
    > wouldn't be surprised
    > if the core group of voters is only about 100 or 200
    > die-hards, though
    > I'd love it if everybody voted. I'm only concerned
    > if this would
    > disadvantage individual pieces against others, but I
    > have a hard time
    > imagining how it would do that.
    >
    > I'm less concerned about the cases where each
    > proposal gets, say, 100
    > votes. The wierd cases will be if not a lot of
    > people vote and a
    > proposal gets just 1 vote. Then its score can only
    > be 100% or 0%. Not
    > sure how to counteract that effect, other than to
    > try to design the
    > interface in such a way that the proposal with the
    > least votes pops up
    > at the top of the list.
    >
    >
    > > Doesn't this yes/no proportion have implications
    > there? But then
    > > again, is there a better alternative? I really
    > don't know - just
    > > wanted to alert y'all to possible consequences of:
    > > 1- allowing people to choose the pieces they're
    > saying somethig about
    > > it (i'm sure it would be a nigthmare but maybe you
    > could assign works
    > > to people? guess the interface encouraging you to
    > vote on the ones
    > > that haven't voted yet could be the solution - and
    > i'm curious about
    > > it.:))
    > > 2- having the ratio yes/no to influence the
    > overall result as opposed
    > > to yes only.
    > >
    > > All the best and kudos on the description of the
    > voting process!
    > >
    > > Ana Boa-Ventura
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
    > open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    > out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at
    http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    =====
    *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
    http://photos.yahoo.com/
  • Patrick Simons | Mon Dec 15th 2003 8:56 a.m.
    Totally in agreement with young Michael here, perhaps the process for deciding the theme of the commissions could take the form of a game?
    kerplunk
    Patrick

    Michael Szpakowski wrote:

    > Actually what might be really interesting and remove
    > it from the level of tokenism is if the *entire* jury
    > was elected by the paid up rhizome community.
    > ( and perhaps if the subject of the commissions was
    > decided similarly too)
    > michael
    >
    > --- Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 06:48 PM, ana
    > > boa-ventura wrote:
    > >
    > > > Francis,
    > > >
    > > > I want to compliment you on this document: it's
    > > excellent! I have only
    > > > one doubt.
    > > > When you say:
    > > >> For example, a proposal which receives 10 Yes
    > > votes will be ranked
    > > >> >at 100%, and a proposal that receives 15 Yes
    > > votes and 5 No votes
    > > >> >will be ranked at 75%.
    > > >
    > > > Does this mean that i can vote "yes" , "no" or
    > > express "no opinion" for
    > > > piece X? In which case it is the ratio of "yes"
    > > versus "no" for that
    > > > particular piece that counts? Hmmm. If this is so
    > > the only thing that i
    > > > thought we should be aware of - and may come up in
    > > the discussion - is
    > > > a bit like the unreliability of studies based on
    > > voluntary surveys.
    > > > You're only going to answer if you feel strongly
    > > about whatever is
    > > > covered there - if you loved it or hated it
    > > you'll answer . If
    > > > you're just ok with it you probably won't.
    > >
    > > I imagined that you could only vote "yes" or "no".
    > > You can't vote "no
    > > opinion", though you can simply choose not to vote
    > > on a particular
    > > proposal.
    > >
    > > It is true that this voting system will be weighted
    > > towards those who
    > > feel strongly about the process and various
    > > proposals. I think that's
    > > generally true of all voting systems, though. I
    > > wouldn't be surprised
    > > if the core group of voters is only about 100 or 200
    > > die-hards, though
    > > I'd love it if everybody voted. I'm only concerned
    > > if this would
    > > disadvantage individual pieces against others, but I
    > > have a hard time
    > > imagining how it would do that.
    > >
    > > I'm less concerned about the cases where each
    > > proposal gets, say, 100
    > > votes. The wierd cases will be if not a lot of
    > > people vote and a
    > > proposal gets just 1 vote. Then its score can only
    > > be 100% or 0%. Not
    > > sure how to counteract that effect, other than to
    > > try to design the
    > > interface in such a way that the proposal with the
    > > least votes pops up
    > > at the top of the list.
    > >
    > >
    > > > Doesn't this yes/no proportion have implications
    > > there? But then
    > > > again, is there a better alternative? I really
    > > don't know - just
    > > > wanted to alert y'all to possible consequences of:
    > > > 1- allowing people to choose the pieces they're
    > > saying somethig about
    > > > it (i'm sure it would be a nigthmare but maybe you
    > > could assign works
    > > > to people? guess the interface encouraging you to
    > > vote on the ones
    > > > that haven't voted yet could be the solution - and
    > > i'm curious about
    > > > it.:))
    > > > 2- having the ratio yes/no to influence the
    > > overall result as opposed
    > > > to yes only.
    > > >
    > > > All the best and kudos on the description of the
    > > voting process!
    > > >
    > > > Ana Boa-Ventura
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
    > > open to non-members
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    > > out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    > =====
    > *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly
    > office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly
    > time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF
    > the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the
    > office OF the
    > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
    > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
    > http://photos.yahoo.com/
  • Rachel Greene | Mon Dec 15th 2003 12:54 p.m.
    I take this as a strong suggestion for our next round of commissions,
    but I am afraid we're too far along with this year's program to either
    change the theme (which was decided upon over a year ago, by the way),
    or to uninvite the jury. -- Rachel

    On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 07:56 AM, Patrick Simons wrote:

    > Totally in agreement with young Michael here, perhaps the process for
    > deciding the theme of the commissions could take the form of a game?
    > kerplunk
    > Patrick
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >
    >> Actually what might be really interesting and remove
    >> it from the level of tokenism is if the *entire* jury
    >> was elected by the paid up rhizome community.
    >> ( and perhaps if the subject of the commissions was
    >> decided similarly too)
    >> michael
    >>
    >> --- Francis Hwang <francis@rhizome.org> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 06:48 PM, ana
    >>> boa-ventura wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Francis,
    >>>>
    >>>> I want to compliment you on this document: it's
    >>> excellent! I have only
    >>>> one doubt.
    >>>> When you say:
    >>>>> For example, a proposal which receives 10 Yes
    >>> votes will be ranked
    >>>>>> at 100%, and a proposal that receives 15 Yes
    >>> votes and 5 No votes
    >>>>>> will be ranked at 75%.
    >>>>
    >>>> Does this mean that i can vote "yes" , "no" or
    >>> express "no opinion" for
    >>>> piece X? In which case it is the ratio of "yes"
    >>> versus "no" for that
    >>>> particular piece that counts? Hmmm. If this is so
    >>> the only thing that i
    >>>> thought we should be aware of - and may come up in
    >>> the discussion - is
    >>>> a bit like the unreliability of studies based on
    >>> voluntary surveys.
    >>>> You're only going to answer if you feel strongly
    >>> about whatever is
    >>>> covered there - if you loved it or hated it
    >>> you'll answer . If
    >>>> you're just ok with it you probably won't.
    >>>
    >>> I imagined that you could only vote "yes" or "no".
    >>> You can't vote "no
    >>> opinion", though you can simply choose not to vote
    >>> on a particular
    >>> proposal.
    >>>
    >>> It is true that this voting system will be weighted
    >>> towards those who
    >>> feel strongly about the process and various
    >>> proposals. I think that's
    >>> generally true of all voting systems, though. I
    >>> wouldn't be surprised
    >>> if the core group of voters is only about 100 or 200
    >>> die-hards, though
    >>> I'd love it if everybody voted. I'm only concerned
    >>> if this would
    >>> disadvantage individual pieces against others, but I
    >>> have a hard time
    >>> imagining how it would do that.
    >>>
    >>> I'm less concerned about the cases where each
    >>> proposal gets, say, 100
    >>> votes. The wierd cases will be if not a lot of
    >>> people vote and a
    >>> proposal gets just 1 vote. Then its score can only
    >>> be 100% or 0%. Not
    >>> sure how to counteract that effect, other than to
    >>> try to design the
    >>> interface in such a way that the proposal with the
    >>> least votes pops up
    >>> at the top of the list.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Doesn't this yes/no proportion have implications
    >>> there? But then
    >>>> again, is there a better alternative? I really
    >>> don't know - just
    >>>> wanted to alert y'all to possible consequences of:
    >>>> 1- allowing people to choose the pieces they're
    >>> saying somethig about
    >>>> it (i'm sure it would be a nigthmare but maybe you
    >>> could assign works
    >>>> to people? guess the interface encouraging you to
    >>> vote on the ones
    >>>> that haven't voted yet could be the solution - and
    >>> i'm curious about
    >>>> it.:))
    >>>> 2- having the ratio yes/no to influence the
    >>> overall result as opposed
    >>>> to yes only.
    >>>>
    >>>> All the best and kudos on the description of the
    >>> voting process!
    >>>>
    >>>> Ana Boa-Ventura
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
    >>> open to non-members
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    >>> out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at
    >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >>
    >> =====
    >> *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly
    >> office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly
    >> time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF
    >> the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the
    >> office OF the
    >> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
    >> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
    >>
    >> __________________________________
    >> Do you Yahoo!?
    >> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
    >> http://photos.yahoo.com/
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
Your Reply