--- Log opened Wed Feb 06 00:00:24 2013
18:14 < conseo> mcallan: blocking means that you can block voters (only for yourself, if you don't think they share your position really)
18:15 < conseo> is this what you understood?
18:17 < mcallan> i think so.  u mean the vote is not received by you, and person not shown as your voter, right?
18:28 < mcallan> (can't wait till we have the problem of too many voters ;-)
18:36 < conseo> it is shown as a voter, but the voter arrow would be greyed out or something. it should definetly be shown that the vote is there and that it is being excluded
18:37 < conseo> it is important to reason about the collective content to see constraints and problems. people can then adjust and alter their plans to form a more inclusive plan
18:38 < conseo> it is a bad situation when votes are not relevant for some candidate, but you should be able to express that imho
18:41 < mcallan> but vote = agreement in the context of an issue. it's irrelevant whether candidate agrees with agreement - and weird if he does not
18:42 < mcallan> we do load other connotations on the vote, such as "working with", but they are never formalized
18:44 < mcallan> if you want to say "but actually, he's *not* working with me", then we could formalize *that* if necessary, but it cannot affect the vote itself
18:45 < mcallan> (we could even grey out vote in the ui if need be, as you say, but we could not discount it)
18:45 < mcallan> imho
18:52 < conseo> mcallan: the problem is to get a balanced resource count for a candidate. if too many expectations are raised, then the plan can never be implemented. this should be an exceptional measure (maybe only applied to some resource types?)
18:59 < conseo> i have to think about it again. the problem is the needy part that would be expressed in a vote (making it somewhat reciprocal)
19:02 < conseo> i understand your worries
19:07 < conseo> it is difficult to account resources in agreement with the voters intent, if we just leave out the every day share of necessities from planning, then this has to be expressed implicitly in the positions
19:08 < conseo> it might be somewhat orthogonal to a vote, but it still relates to planning
19:09 < conseo> maybe anti-accounts would make sense? tie them to your position and you could receive some part of the pledges
19:18 < conseo> i am off for today, gn8
19:28 < mcallan> maybe needs (expectations, =accounts) should be meaningful only upstream, and resources (=pledges) meaningful downstream
19:29 < mcallan> conseo: that way, voters can only contribute stuff, cannot take stuff
19:30 < mcallan> or i might misunderstand... anyway, gn8
--- Log closed Thu Feb 07 00:00:41 2013