(CLOSED) to distribute tickets for Kiez Burn 2022^H^H^H^H2023

Good point, I think you're absolutely right that those numbers don't make sense at that small of an attendance.

To begin with 300 is probably too high, we sent out 129 invitations to e.V. members for burn night of which 43 were redeemed. Then, just guessing here, 50 people who are realizers/camp leads that aren't e.V. members? My assumption is also that this number stays fairly stable as the event grows, which makes this model more interesting over time.

Then there's the rate at which people redeem the invitations. Here your guess is as good as mine, having never done this before. It's certainly not 100%, maybe 70% on average? That would mean each invite yields 1.4 additional ones. Then we're three steps from 129 to 741.

The CCCs algorithm is a bit more contrived in that the number of invitations. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) most only give 1 invitation per purchase, and then quite a few invitations later in the chain are terminal as in that they don't replicate. Then more invitations are handed out to the people that start the chain. Making it linear is definitely a possibility, but it seems like a lot of coordination for each group.

Can someone explain this to me please?

We're now discussing at least two different things in a single thread on a post that has nothing to do with what we're talking about :D

Let's move to Reddit :P

Correct, that's exactly how it's intended to work. You've done an AP. You've gotten some feedback. You've gotten the idea that a bunch of people would probably be pissed off if you went rogue and put in the highest number possible, so you have a strong incentive not to do that. If you did do that, and the board thought it was bad enough and/or egregious enough, they could legally revert your decision.

OK, guess we're selling 1500 tickets then.

Seems to be a a lot of confusion and misinformation here...

1. The verein does have democratically elected board members (by the e.v. members). Also votes can be brought up at a general assembly which are also decided by direct democracy by e.v. members. I believe that technically that's a legal requirement, so we couldn't even change that if we wanted to.

2. Once a board is elected, the board members technically have the authority to make any decision on behalf of the e.v. members until the end of their term. As far as running the event, for historical/path-dependency reasons the board defers many of those decisions to active members of the community (some/many of whom are not even e.v. members) through this system of "do-ocracy", either actively or through inaction since that seems to be the accepted default by now. Technically/legally speaking, as far as I understand, the board could overrule any decision made here in Talk or otherwise, but typically they choose not to, again either implicitly or explicitly.

3. The advice process is meant to collect advice. It is not meant to make a decision. At least that's how I understand "do-ocracy". It is meant to inform the do-er enough that they can make a decision that will be generally acceptable and beneficial. Polls, voting, democracy, whatever, at least in the context of an AP, are information at best... they are not intended to be a decision maker.

4. At least in my opinion, not every decision needs an AP. In fact, that is happening quite frequently as it is. Do-ers, Realizers, whatever are making a bunch of decisions that are never discussed on Talk or otherwise. My understanding of the idea of an AP is that when a "Do-er" reaches a point where they need to make a decision and they realize that it will affect many people, that the choice may be controversial, that they may not have all the information they need to make that decision, that there might be other "experts" that would have useful information to help make that decision, etc. then they should start an AP process to... get advice on making that decision.

Sorry, it's still not super clear to me what the intended benefit of this is: "encouraging existing bonds from inside and on the edges to strengthen"?

@Veroca R. Sala [In response to the idea of electing 3 people at GA that then appoint 3 further] My initial thought is, that this would overprocess decision making again. It requires creating a new - third - body that needs to be voted in, meet up, have bureaucracy etc.

I believe we already have bodies that fulfil these roles. As @CJ Yetman writes further down this thread, we have a board and we have the KOrg. So it seems, if an idea affects the event itself, the Korg needs to vote on it. If it affects the community outside of the event, the board is probably the place to go. If it affects the inner structure of our community in such drastic ways that it would need to be written down in our Satzung, it needs to be voted at a General Assembly

im not sure about the technicalities, but generally, it is with the idea of having a few people elected that are not the board nor the Korg, who will support the process in decision making in whatever way is needed and not strictly in this platform +, expand the number of people discussing/taking the decision and not leave it to the 7 korgis and the individual realizer by adding humans that are committed and have been elected. Disclaimer: Im not defending my idea as "the way to go" .

I think that however CJs explanation sounds good, the reality is the AP has been interpreted in another direction and I see it hard to give it a different tone now.

By now, I seem to be less and less sure why we do this here and with this system? because if it is for documentation, there are many other ways to document processes. If it is for transparency & inclusion? we are 30 people here even after promoting this group for over 2 years.

What principle is this system pondering? 🤔

I'm really not arguing any point here, but just for some context about engagement on Talk, here are some real numbers...

For the 6 AP threads that have been active this year here are some engagement metrics:

1. ticket distribution - 45 people viewed, 14 direct responses, 34 total comments
2. growing KB - 45 people viewed, 12 direct responses, 34 total comments
3. volunteer signup system - 54 people viewed, 9 direct responses, 20 total comments
4. changing the advice process - 38 people viewed, 7 direct responses, 14 total comments
5. leadership training - 53 people viewed, 12 direct responses, 18 total comments
6. code of conduct - 126 people viewed, 7 direct responses, 20 total comments