RO Voting.

[rlemon]

It has been discussed to only allow votes from other RO's count. I disagree with this for two (main) reasons:

1. we are biased.
2. room culture is driven by more than just the RO's. "the public" should have a say who is and who is not an RO.

Now, there should of course be considerations, like;
have you been part of the room for more than today (or X time) ??
are you a bot ??
??

Please discuss.

[kendfrey]

It will be much easier to allow only ROs, I vote against. Of course, opinions can be shared by anyone, and can affect the voting.

[benjamingr]

I think everyone who's been in the room long enough and whose opinion we trust becomes an RO anyway if they're interested in room culture and policy. So I think only ROs should vote.

I'm fine with specific exceptions of people who are disinterested in being RO but otherwise meet the qualifications.

I wouldn't want zigi, noob1992, hitler dude, porizm or any of the trolls we've had over the years to get a vote.

[GNi33]

I disagree, because as you said, deciding who gets to vote outside of the RO group will be hard and will lead to even more discussion.

As @kendfrey said, when votings are open, users in the chat can voice their opinion. ROs should be a respected group that sort of represents the demographic of the whole room, so voting should be restricted to this group.

[rlemon]

I agree, exceptions should be made.. but I also think users like GNi33 or towc (for example)
should have a vote. They are in the room quite often and do help quite a few users while here (read: keep the room moving forward on point).

[loktar00]

I agree with @GNi33 once exceptions are made it ends up being a pretty slippery slope with feelings being hurt.

[ssube]

I think everyone should be allowed to speak, but only ROs should have a vote (one of them representative democracy thingy).

To keep things fair, maybe poll regulars for their opinions a few days ahead of the vote, so we can get some feedback and think about it?

[FirstWhack]

http://feathub.com is free and has voting features as well as tallies. Would be a lot more useable than commenting +1/-1, but then we'd be on a different site.

[rlemon]

GH is easy to 1:1 accounts to SO.. I know who is who. We can easily setup another site to do voting on with GH or stack auth..

[FirstWhack]

It uses GH accounts

[rlemon]

@Jhawins nice. I honestly didn't look. :D

[benjamingr]

@Jhawins was that a comment to @kendfrey's issue?

[FirstWhack]

We need a time limit for voting

[benjamingr]

It doesn't look like this is going to happen unless we have a more concrete proposal.

[Shmiddty]

Voting should be based on "citizenship". Citizenship is not mandatory for entry. Acquiring citizenship involves:

1. Being relatively active. (N messages over a period of T)
2. Naturalization test?
3. Q:A threshold?

Citizenship would be granted automatically upon fulfillment of requirements, and could be used to drive a plethora of functionality.