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

I am very much in favor of this system. I likey. I have no questions. I wish we could have done it for the Burn Night.

Praise to the mistress of exponential tickets! You have already perfected the art of neat presentation, punchy humor and getting sh*t done efficiently when working for the Burn Night, @Kris. The previous ticket presale platform has rocked, will there be a tricky questionnaire again?

On the point... Do you know this advice process template? The details are nicely outlined and visualized on Miro, this takes the advice process to a whole new level though!

Here are my five cents: Will there be a prioritization if we exceed the 200-300 tickets proposed for the first tier (secret replication sale) that directs tickets to e.V. members, KORGis, camp leads, realizers from the previous year, whoever the KORG can get their hands on – or can this first ticket contingent be flexibly adjusted (just in case we're more than 300 Kiezis in these groups)? Do you have any experience on whether this system has an impact on fewer international burners (with little contact in the Kiez Burn community) participating – the diversity point was mentioned, but that sounds a bit counterintuitive for me? (edit: with 1/3 of the total tickets being distributed in the raffle, this still sounds somehow radically inclusive...)

I'm excited to give it a try and trust that the system will lead to improve some things we are struggling with.... Keywords growth, fame and festival tourists. We first need a date before this can be kicked off. The tickets for the first (secret) round could also be issued as vouchers, if it is not yet clear how much they should cost in the end.

This is a very interesting idea! But I'm not sure I'm understanding how the arithmetic is intended to work out...

Assuming for simplicity that we sell a total of around 1000 tickets again. If 300 eV members, korgis, realizers etc are first given tickets, then we're already up to 900 tickets after just one single step of "exponential growth" (ie after each of the 300 original ticket holders invites two more people). So then we're almost at full capacity already, even without the batch of raffle tickets and the batch of last-minute urgent tickets!

Or, if there are only 200 initial tickets given to eV members etc, then we're already up to 1400 tickets after two steps of replication (200+400+800).

I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad result. But the graphics showed a whole lot of squiggly lines that made made me think a longer, more meandering replication process was intended. The way the numbers add up, it seems to me that the "secret sale" phase could easily sell out almost as quickly as the previous sales sold out.

I wonder if I'm misunderstanding something about how this is meant to work...

Thank you for the wonderful presentation, really well structured and explained @Kris. Generally, I'm in favour of this ticket distribution system, especially with an eye on growing Kiez Burn to 2000 or 3000 participants eventually. I have a few questions for clarity:

• Historical Question: Did we have key-burners struggle to get tickets last year or in the past? Or is this proposal solving a potential future risk?

  • At BRC the initial initiation of Directed Tickets was in response to vital or old camps not getting any or enough tickets in the raffle and an exponential rise in virgins. Did we have a similar problem already at Kiez Burn or is this hypothetical?
    

• Logistical Queries: What happens to unused "personal invitation links"? What if I'm an e.V. member with no friends or simply an unorganised burner that never opens their emails?

  • would there be a time limit on how quickly you need to distribute your ticket links or would the links just slowly dust away in an Inbox?

  • On the flip side, what can I do if my most vital camp addition is a last-minute find and my personal-invite link has expired?
    

• Class Struggle - High-Income vs Low-Income: Whilst I can easily imagine a "donate more you rich hippie" add-on to a ticket invite, I'm struggling to see how low-income applications fit into the model. Would I need a personal-invitation link before applying for a low-income ticket or would those come from a different ticket pot?

This sounds interesting, but I fail to see the purpose/benefit. Can you state clearly what is the reason for doing this / what benefit would we get from doing this versus any other known ticketing possibility?

I really love the way you displayed the information! It made my brain so much happier to engage with it!

Some thoughts…

I like the organic word of mouth idea to grow our community for a few reasons

• As the RAD team is building the Code of Conduct and implementing tools and resources to keep our communities safe(r), this organic growth allows us to build the community with people who have inferred trust.

Diversity:

Belonging Tickets

• Perhaps we can have a group of Belonging tickets aside for BIPoC , Trans and Non-Binary, Disabled ect. tickets. We would have to create a set of self-identifying criteria that makes folks eligible for the belonging ticket.

• The Belonging tickets are then able to have a # of tickets that can then be for some of their people. Building on Kris’s “having your people and your camp where you feel like can fully be yourself.”

• To foster diversity, inclusion, and Belonging we have to create to open ourselves up to diversity folks, by making KB accessible and removing barriers. Tickets are a big way of doing this.

Transparency

• Once the advice process is over we have to be transparent about how the tickets are/ will be sold.

• Diversity is not created by things happening in secret

Class Struggle - High-Income vs Low-Income & diversity

• We have to have some way of offering lower income tickets.

• The idea of “I want to invite this person and I'll subsidize x% of their ticket" could be very problematic. For example, I could not subsides someone else’s ticket, I don’t have the means to do that.

Belonging Tickets

• Perhaps KB does some sort of fundraiser, or puts a section of the budget aside, or a combination of both to create a Belonging tickets fund. We can ask higher income burns to add on a donation to the belonging fund as part of the ticket sales.

• Perhaps we have a set number of belonging tickers for free and a set number for 50% or something like this.

Low-Income

• Using some sort of system (maybe what have now, not sure how it works) for folks who do not meet the criteria for Belonging tickets.

• Here is a great resource on regarding sliding scales (I used it as a basis for my own) http://www.wortsandcunning.com/blog/a-better-sliding-scale

Thank you for bringing up this nice proposal in such a cool format! Although, I don't want to read no more, next time please, make an animated video, or a podcast, that I can listen to while riding my long board through Tempelhof.

But actual comments would be:

• Low income: it'd be nice to find a way to include them in the general process, so they don't skip the mouth to mouth system. Maybe with an extra link to a questionnaire/explanation why, and someone revisiting it at some point or several points? Those kind of options to spend more on your ticket to support extra low income tickets, or jus buying a ticket for a friend seem cool, but I don't know if they actually have any impact, how much are they used.

• I'd be up for setting a quota for inclusivity, to promote more diversity in our community.

• 2 details that I find very useful and missing in this cool advice process are: deadline (when is this ending and when will a decision be made?) And who's gonna implement it (I guess you? 😁)

@Cris or others who were around last year.... is there a thread on talk related to previous ticket sales (I get super lost trying to find stuff in talk sometimes)?

Ticketing is a great tool to effectively include new people, from a more diverse background.

In Miro the proposal showed 66% tickets for the in-crowd with only 1/3rd for "the stranger with the new ideas".

It is always about finding the best balance between the principles of inclusion and community, particularly when deciding on tickets. As a reference: in 2019+2020, we allocated about 20% of tix to dreams & kieze.

I believe a minimum of 66% of tickets open to new people would be more fitting.

Hi, I have been tagged here,
I like this approach so far yes, we need to work out the numbers more in detail as this is a rather "small" event❤️

Low-income brain fart: Can people just be given the regular link but in the purchase process we include a low-income application as an option? so the person who applies for LI utilizes the link which will no longer be available for conversion after submitting (is this even possible?). As a result, once their low-income ticket is approved; there is another LI ticket or "half ticket" back to the poll. Of course, we need to disable the LI option whenever is appropriate. And I have no idea how much of a pain in the butt is this, im just brainfarting because is gratis and I dont need a ticket for it.

Im gonna drop here some numbers from 2021:

• We had a total of 52 "main orga" that include Korg, board, Realizers, dream guides team + those magical last-minute people who jumped in to help with short-term but very crucial things that were not "official roles".

• I can assure you that at least 25 of them were/are eV members, but maybe a couple of more...

• we had like 37 Kiezes/ Kiez Leads (if im not mistaken)

• we had 42 funded art projects /not dreamers ( many dreamers had more than one dream!)

• And we are currently a bit over 130 eV members.

• Consider this: many of main orga were also applying for one or many art projects and were also eV members, or even Kiez Leads on top of it all, so this is not a matter of just summing up all these numbers because as I said there is A LOT of overlapping. I would quickly guess we are sitting on 170 humans who need to be in... - historically many e.V members dont convert their tickets while others pass them on.

  As a note, I wanna say that by the time we do the first "secret" round, probably not all the roles are taken, which means we dont need to release 300 or 200 tickets for the first round.

im gonna leave here a link to a comment in another thread, just to have it in mind when planning the ticketing process: https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/reyAcw4o/do-we-want-to-grow-the-kiez-burn-population-in-2022-/15 ( incl demographic questions in the tickets purchase survey)

Alright gays and gals, this has been very interesting and instructive!

Unfortunately, I'm landing on shelving this until next year. The reason is simply that there's too much other stuff I'd rather be doing, and we're not exactly having an early start.

Particularly two things weigh heavy:

• We didn't sell out quickly the last years, and we're (likely? Vero?) increasing capacity at least by a bit. So anyone tuned in enough will have a chill experience.

• I'm likely to be realising this, but there's not enough time for me to enjoy doing it. Ideally I'd like to start like December to think about this, and not March.

I'd love for this idea to work and to be something that is readily deployed for a nice experience, so maybe we can try it for burn night and ramp up from there. Or just do it next year.

Thanks for all the input!

Oh this is a pitty. It indeed looked like we would have an early start but not really.

• The population growth AP was cancelled. So unless someone starts the discussion again I guess stands the previous number ( I guess!)

Personal note: I have the feeling that all these processes we have in place are slowing us down in decision making while these could be taken in a meeting with those most involved in the matter rather than waiting for people to opine in this platform in decisions + it is too time consuming and demotivating.

Advice Processes work well when they seek exactly that: Advice. I have this idea, but I don't know how to execute it, can you help.

I've never seen this happen? I think that kind of communication is more likely to happen other channels.

The real problem here is probably the fracturing of responsibility, who makes the call? "Doocracy" is a cop out obscuring informal hierarchies, most things are not done by a single individual.

Again theory and praxis, it doesn't matter that board members technically have the ability to make decisions if they don't. You're not addressing the fact going your prescribed route of "start an AP process to .. get advice" doesn't help at all when what you're seeking is to get a decision made, which is what we're complaining about not having a way to do.

For example, I am likely to be the "doer" that inputs a number into a field in the ticketing system for the number of participants. As per your system here, I am the sole decision maker as the doer. Problem is, that inputting this number is only incidental to what I am doing. I want to sell tickets, and I need to put in a number.

Vero asked the question recently as an AP. And while we got little morsels of expert advice, like Freiland has a limit, Rangers feel confident in a number, by far the most response we got was opinion.

So I'm left looking at this input field going yeah, I could go with the expert advice on what's safe and my own personal feeling - and put that number as high as possible. That's then the purely rational, idealized thing to do in this system. But I've read the AP, I've read all the opinion, and I know it would be widely unpopular thing to do. So I risk pissing off everyone in the community, because of a decision I had to make was wrong. I would have zero backing from any board or anyone else, it is my fault. So I get to worry that I'm fucking up the whole event, maybe even get ostracized because of it? Because of something I don't care about.

This is the recipe for a risk-averse, timid burn.

I did not say that. I said that disregarding comments is not genuinely seeking advice. I said that knowing something would be a widely unpopular decision but doing it anyway because you were in a position to do so is weaponizing the system to get what you want out of it rather than genuinely following a process intended to seek out a solution that is definitively not "widely unpopular".

There is nothing in that AP that indicates that it would be widely unpopular. It would be wildly unpopular with certain people, which I guess include you, but 20ish12(!! - some of which wanted to expand) commenters is not representative of a 1500 people event.

Remember when I said I don't care about what that number ends up being? Yet I'm pulled into a useless divisive discussion with you, because there wasn't anything I could defer to to make it. You're both defending this system and deriding me for following it. This system is burn-out sauce.

(This MFer sends emails to pull be back in. Logging out again.)

To be honest, I don't quite understand why you think there's some conflict between us... I don't feel that way. I'm answering your questions / responding to your comments to the best of my knowledge. You presented in one of your messages a (hypothetical?) situation where you know that setting the number as high as possible would be "widely unpopular" and suggest that this is what you might do anyway and then a bunch of people would be upset. We have actually experienced situations like that in the past. In my opinion, that is the biggest failure of this "do-cracy" thing... people get pissed and then just do whatever they want for whatever reason, and the process, which is designed to get people to engage with people in the community and seek out an amicable solution, instead ends up with people trying to force through something that is very contentious and pisses a bunch of people off.... I just can't find any rational justification of how that type of behavior genuinely follows the "advice process".

Maybe a positive example would be better than negative example? This was, imo, a very good AP process. The proposers gave a lot of information, put a lot of thought into it, and then over the course of a few weeks took in and responded to a lot of comments and criticisms, adapted their proposal multiple times in response to that, and ultimately implemented something that, yes for sure not every single person was super happy about, but I find it very difficult to read that thread and take away something like most people were against the idea and then they just got exhausted and said fuck it we're just going to do it anyway....
https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/D20BEOi4/-decision-dogs-at-kiez-burn-2021

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

And that's a perfect example of my main gripe with the AP process... people weaponize it to get what they want rather than genuinely putting it into practice.

What do you mean?? Am I the one weaponizing it here? Or the people who scream the loudest on Talk about not wanting to grow? How do I know if they're representative of the community as a whole? Better to disregard them and go with what seems right. The expert advice supports my decision.

How do I genuinely put it into practice?

disregarding comments, in my opinion, does not genuinely follow the advice process

But ... you see that runs contrary to what you just said about the process above?

Is my decision illegitimate then, because it's not genuine??

there is, unfortunately, no mechanism that I know of to enforce that people "genuinely" seek out people's advice/opinions and try to find the best solution... other than legally the board could, for instance, refuse to sign permits, contracts, etc. and force it so the event does not happen in a way they feel is inappropriate

DO YOU SEE MY PROBLEM THEN????

where did I contradict that disregarding comments does not "genuinely following the advice process"?

Some more thoughts... How transparent and inclusive is a first "secret" round of sales – wouldn't people who learn about it for some reason and become e.V. members because of it have a huge advantage?

And about the numbers: The past years a certain contingent of directed tickets was given to the camps to make sure that they get their needs met and their critical realizers get tickets. There are some camps that are now very involved in Kiez Burn orga (Deine Mudda), so we can assume that they will get all the tickets in the first round. On the other hand, there are camps where maybe only the lead person is e.V. member/KORG/realizer/... – all others would have to be invited. How would that work if the lead person would then only has one single invitation (because of numbers & contingent)? The others would need to participate in the raffle...

BECAUSE THE ADVICE IS CONTRADICTORY!!!! THERE'S NO FUCKING PURE IDEALIZED ADVICE THAT YOU CAN JUST DOWNLOAD OR DRINK OR SOMETHING THIS ISN"T DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. YOU THE TRUE SCOTSMAN HERE SAY MY READING OF THE ADVICE IS NON-GENUINE?!?! SO HOW CAN I MAKE A DECISION IF YOU"RE GOING TO SAY I"M "WEAPONIZING THE PROCESS" WHEN I MAKE A DECISION YOU DON"T LIKE

This is dumb. I'm logging off. It's 1500 tickets now.

@CJ Yetman

@Kris

This discussion is getting out of hand, I'd like to ask the both of you to have a Chat with each other on the phone or via pn, as I believe this discussion is rooted in a misunderstanding.

However it seems to me that the last comments are at least partly leaving our netiquette and I need to step in.

❤

😘 Sorry for being a dumdum in the comments. This is pure nonsense from me wanting to be right and funny all the time, not a good endeavor.

This thread is waaaay off topic, so putting a bit ol CLOSED on this post.

If anyone that isn’t me thinks they can pull it off this year, by any means get in here because the response to this AP was positive-ish. I just don’t think there’s time.

sorry folks.... I should've just stopped responding 😕

Maybe it's a semantic thing? Do you think that by "disregarding comments" I mean coming to a decision that is not in full 100% compliance with every comment/opinion that has been stated?

Thank you for your faith in me, I'm sure it's misplaced <3

Hm, hopefully international burners who come to kiez burn more than once are just as plugged in to the community as ze germans - we're all online mostly after all. Not sure who you're thinking about here, actually? International "festival tourists"?

Diversity needs belonging, and that requires more than inclusion - like having your people and your camp where you feel like can fully be yourself. A lot of people that wouldn't go alone (or with one friend that's been before) ("i'm not into <psytrace/drugs/whatever prejudice>") would go if they had support to bring a larger part of their tribe/choir/gang.

I only saw the template after, and there's a some good practical things mentioned there that should be addressed - I'll put it in the doc along with points from here.

• Historical Question: Did we have key-burners struggle to get tickets last year or in the past? Or is this proposal solving a potential future risk?

  Not that I'm aware (someone older than me should chime in), and that's the biggest argument against doing something like this (if a raffle/fcfs just "works" then why change it?).

  KB might (proportionately) have always directed more tickets than BM?

• Logistical Queries: What happens to unused "personal invitation links"? What if I'm an e.V. member with no friends or simply an unorganised burner that never opens their emails?

  • would there be a time limit on how quickly you need to distribute your ticket links or would the links just slowly dust away in an Inbox?

    Yes this would be a week to a day or two, depending how close to the event we are. They need to expire so we can invite other people.

  • On the flip side, what can I do if my most vital camp addition is a last-minute find and my personal-invite link has expired?

    I'm not sure about the implementation details yet, there's lot of details to try. One possible model is that you enter emails of people to invite when you're ready to do that, either straight away as you buy your ticket - or later when you make a new friend.
    

• Class Struggle - High-Income vs Low-Income: Whilst I can easily imagine a "donate more you rich hippie" add-on to a ticket invite, I'm struggling to see how low-income applications fit into the model. Would I need a personal-invitation link before applying for a low-income ticket or would those come from a different ticket pot?

  It would probably need it's own process, unfortunately.

  I did try this at Borderland of using an honor system for low income - and they got all snatched up in a second. It even had extra questions you had to answer about how you felt taking it. We explicitly said it was for local-ish people, but it was predominantly used by out-of-area burners. Some I talked to took the low income as their long flights were expensive 🤦

  It would be kind of fun to try a "I want to invite this person and I'll subsidize x% of their ticket", but it's too much effort for right now.

  The base price is very low for what it is, so maybe it's better to think of ways to really normalize paying more than the minimum. At least for Scandinavians that one is really tough, and presume it's the same for Germans.

To the point about people becoming eV members to get an advantage with ticket sales:

I guess the thing that would make most sense would be to limit that first round of tickets to people who are already eV members when the ticket plan is decided/announced?

We have to have some way of offering lower income tickets.

I'll try to address more of these, but just doing this one by itself because i had a brain idea. What if the lowest was so low everyone could afford it? What if we incentivized most people to go over?

A possible experiment could look like this, using a fundraiser style progress bar - but showing the average instead of total.

https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/AMmVkQsE/initiative-radical-ticket-sale
https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/2AZBFu8y/radical-tickets-request-for-changes

I'd very much like and Support a realizer (until the new one gather the ones from the precious year) meeting to reach decisions for this year kiezburn. 👍

Raffle = very long tail, once you start you can't stop (with burner tickets), people miss their emails anyways (spam etc). It should have more time to work than we have now.

Direct sales = give s time advantage to those not working at the time of tickets sales. It was a stressful (although short) experience. it would need to be handled much fairer than BT did it last year (with the queue-jumping phenomenon).

So this system seems to benefit the community as a whole, by encouraging existing bonds from inside and on the edges to strengthen (by ensuring linked ticket sales). On the downside, it may add a bit more cliquyness (which considering our camp-nature, is not something that's going to change imo).

I completely agree. I believe we have hit the upper limitation of the AP quite a few times now.

The AP cannot work when the result of the decision affects everyone. It is impossible to get enough subjective KB-consent (a Hell Yes!) from the affected parties by interpreting talk comments.

If we continue to use this methodology for big decisions, then KB will never be able to change. Realizers with big proposals need to have some clarity on whether they have sufficient support to move forward.

We are volunteers, and cannot invest an additional 30+ hours to push through an AP. Especially when they are important decisions like how-to-ticketing, # tickets, % of art budget etc.

For these decisions, I think we need direct-democracy. A realizer (or potential realizer) makes a proposal (like this one, excellent work @kris), provides sufficient time to adjust their proposal based on advice from the community (as normal) and then puts it up to a vote as to how much support they have to move forward. By adding this final step, a realizer can make decisions with confidence, or choose to drop the proposal.

I think I need to formulate this into an AP. How ironic......

(For note, I think the AP process is great for decisions that do not directly affect everyone. But I do not see any harm in adding an 'unbinding vote' at the end of any AP for the realizer to get broader feedback from more Talk members than those that want to engage in written debate. Some of us just want ot give a 👍 , 👎, or just say "I don't care, do whatever".)

Also, the biggest drawback I can see from this is "Everyone isn't on Talk". But that argument is void as that is a limitation of the AP anyways.

I've been extolling the virtues of just electing a board and have them do decisions, and if we don't like those decisions - dethrone them. "Move fast, break things, then fix it" is much preferable to "deliberate for hours and then do the perfect thing on the first try".

I seem to remember the Pirate Party had a platform with a nifty feature to strike a balance with direct democracy and representation, where things could be put to a vote - and you either used your vote or you delegated it to someone you trust to vote for you. Which would make it easy for someone like me who doesn't care about the details of 90% of things, I could just give my vote to Cris or whomever for those things.

We've seem (not knowing the history here) to have gone the road of "deliberate and then be perfect" when choosing this platform, and I'd love to get out of that mindset and run experiments with how we do decisions - then maybe we discover something cool that actually works for us.

Second to that, having a board/executive is a tried and true method of running an org that quite often works.

As someone who only this week finally overcame my frustrations with Talk to engage in these conversations better, I agree. Advice Processes work well when they seek exactly that: Advice. I have this idea, but I don't know how to execute it, can you help. Voting on IF something should actually happen, I find impossible on Talk because the decision is then left to the 5 active Talk members, maybe 10. That doesn't make for a more democratic process than if we didn't ask the community at all.

I think we need to simplify the bureaucratic part a bit further, the whole writing process on this platform and collecting input here is tedious.

We could have 3 people voted at the GA ( no board members) who later appoint 2-3 more people and they all come together with the Korg, as soon as it is formed.

• The whole group (or at least 50%) gets together eventually with the realizer/s who has the idea and talks them through the proposal.

• The "experts" ( ex realizers) are consulted if they are available.

• The voted members by the GA can ensure that info was collected in some way and weighted in, before any decision is made.

• the whole group vote, pim pum pam and a decision is made.

• A protocol is written up/notes/ conclusions and documented here on Talk for the future.

If the realizer wants to seek advice here, or make polls to see how supported the idea is, they are encouraged to do so, but the discussion and decision-making process is not held in this platform with the 5 ones who are sometimes online. Let's humanize the way we do things, please. We are organizing a burn, but it feels like something else...it has gotten, boring, annoying, cold and not worthy!