Consolidation of module set

_modules/approval_voting.md

@@ -1,53 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Approval voting
-permalink: /modules/approval_voting/
-type: decision
-summary: Voters can approve or deny approval for each option.
-config:
-    Approvals: 
-    Denials: 
----
-
-Approval voting is a form of plurality-majority voting in which each voter either positively or negatively determines all candidates’ aptitude for the job. Rather than only voting for one candidate who would best serve in the role, voters participating in approval voting either give or deny approval for each candidate and may approve as many as they see fit. The candidate with the most approval votes wins.
-
-**Input:** ballot allowing for multiple approval or disapproval votes
-
-**Output:** single- or multiple-winner election based on plurality approval
-
-## Background
-
-Approval voting as we now know it dates back to the work of Steven Brams and other political analysts in the 1970s. Its history can be traced to papal conclaves and Venetian Doge elections in the 13th through 18th centuries. Brams also recognizes its use during elections in 19th century England. 
-
-## Feedback loops
-
-### Sensitivities
-
-* Approval voting has merit in its ability to capture the greatest support for a candidate. In elections with three or more candidates, it ensures that one with widespread support will win as opposed to one with default plurality. 
-* Voters may express support for a minority candidate without “wasting” their vote; they may support both a minority and majority candidate. 
-* Approval voting has also been credited with encouraging individuals to vote because a more diverse pool of applicants can be on the ballot. 
-* Negative campaigning may also be less prominent in these systems.
-
-### Oversights
-
-* Voters may engage in "bullet voting," or only demonstrating approval for their top candidate. When this happens in a widespread fashion, the system returns to a standard plurality voting system.
-* Candidates may water down their stances on particular controversial issues to appeal to a wide swath of voters.
-* Can reproduce the issues associated with plurality-majority voting such as unfair representation, wasted votes, and inaccurate party representation.
-
-## Implementations
-
-### Communities
-
-* Internal and local elections
-* Private society elections such as Mathematical Association of America and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
-
-### Tools
-
-Structured ballot to facilitate voting by marks, names, written words “yes” or “no,” or selection
-
-## Further resources
-
-* Amy, D. J. (2000). Behind the ballot box: a citizen's guide to voting systems. Greenwood Publishing Group.
-* Brams, S., & Fishburn, P. C. (2007). Approval voting. Springer Science & Business Media.
-
-

_modules/autonomy.md

@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Autonomy
-permalink: /modules/autonomy/
-summary: A high value is placed on self-determination among individuals or groups.
-type: culture
----

_modules/consensus.md

@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Consensus
-permalink: /modules/consensus/
-summary: All participants must consent to decisions that affect the entire group.
-type: decision
-config:
-    Max. opposed:
----
-
-# Consensus process
-
-Consensus is a form of group decision-making that reflects the perceived best possible scenario for the greatest number of people. If an individual or a minority cannot support the decision, it can be blocked. Consensus and unanimity are not the same; the decision-rule decided upon by the organization provides the threshold for how many individuals  or groups must agree to the consensus for it to be implemented.
-
-**Input:** a group of individuals willing to collaborate and compromise for a decision with an eye toward unity; individuals with diverse delegated roles like facilitator, timekeeper, and notetaker (though positions and responsibilities may vary among groups); a decision-rule agreed upon by the organization
-
-**Output:** a decision that addresses the needs of the greatest number of people in the group based on compromise; an equitable environment for stakeholders
-
-## Background
-
-In Western contexts, consensus as a decision-making process dates back to the 17th century Quakers. Other religious groups have history of consensus as decision making, including Anabaptists. A process similar, though not exactly reflective of modern consensus, was prevalent among indigenous groups like the [Ayamara, Haudenosaunee, and Saharan San bushmen]( https://rhizomenetwork.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/history_of_consensus_jan2012_v2.pdf). These groups had governance processes that strove to address the needs of the greatest number of people through participatory culture. 
-
-The 1960’s and ‘70’s demonstrated modern consensus process in the United States through social movements like the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Movement. Later, movements like the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle and Occupy movement around the globe established a strong foundation in consensus decision-making.
-
-## Feedback loops
-
-### Sensitivities
-
-* Strives to be inclusive and egalitarian, encouraging all members of the group to collaborate in decision forming
-* Protects minority opinions
-* Provides an opportunity for a win-win situation through community team-building that occurs through productive dialogue involved in the consensus process
-* Encourages all members to have a stake in the decision
-
-### Oversights
-
-* Individuals might feel fearful and discouraged to express their real beliefs or concerns on an issue if a majority already agrees on a decision
-* Marginalized groups’ opinions and beliefs may be demonized and their opinions ignored
-* The decision that is most fair may not actually be the best decision for the group; compromise could exclude important aspects
-* In business setting, hierarchy and seniority may amplify certain employees’ voices and undermine others’
-
-## Implementations
-
-### Communities
-
-While consensus is still used in social movements, many co-operative businesses find it an important hallmark of their organizational decision-making. 
-* The [Boulder Housing Coalition]( https://boulderhousingcoalition.org/resources/consensus/) in Colorado is a co-op that uses consensus as a self-governing process.
-* [Ottawa Valley Food Co-Op]( https://www.ottawavalleyfood.org/images/PDF/OVFC%20Business%20Plan%20-%20Full%20Draft%20-%20October%2018%202015.pdf) in Canada uses consensus decision-making
-* [Radical Routes]( https://www.radicalroutes.org.uk/aims-and-principles.html) is a “network of housing and worker co-operatives working for radical social change” in Britain that operates primary on consensus decisions by all network members.
-
-### Tools
-
-* (ConsensusDecisionMaking.org) offers a one-hour training video on the basic principles of consensus
-* A [checklist]( https://leadtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/COnsensus-checklist.pdf) for the consensus process
-* This [handbook]( https://leadtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/on-conflict-and-consensus.pdf) on consensus decision-making
-
-## Further resources
-
-* Loomio, "[Consent decision making improves group outcomes](https://help.loomio.org/en/guides/consent_process/)"
-* [Rhizome Guide to A History of Consensus]( https://leadtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/on-conflict-and-consensus.pdf). (2010). Rhizome Co-operative. 
-* [Consensus Decision Making]( https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus). Seeds for Change.
-* Pérez, I. J., Cabrerizo, F. J., Alonso, S., Dong, Y. C., Chiclana, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018). On dynamic consensus processes in group decision making problems. Information Sciences, 459, 20-35.

_modules/continuous_voting.md

@@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Continuous voting
-permalink: /modules/continuous_voting/
-summary: Voting can occur anytime, not just on a fixed schedule, and decisions can change if participants alter their votes.
-type: decision
----
-
-# Continuous voting
-
-<!---https://medium.com/giveth/conviction-voting-34019bd17b10-->
-
-Continuous voting is a system in which the vote occurs on a continuous or frequent basis, rather than during discrete election periods.
-
-**Input:** Ballot, randomized or universal electorate, easy mechanism for vote changing
-
-**Output:** Frequent or real-time results
-
-## Background
-
-Continuous voting mechanisms have been proposed in a variety of forms and contexts, though largely only since the advent of Internet technology that would streamline vote-changing and counting. [Delegation](delegation.md) systems like "liquid democracy" generally use continuous voting.
-
-Economics blogger Steve Randy Waldman [proposed](https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/7043.html) in 2018 a model by which random subsets of the electorate would be polled on their representatives at frequent intervals. The same year, BlockScience CEO Michael Zargham [proposed](https://github.com/BlockScience/conviction/blob/master/social-sensorfusion.pdf) a model called "conviction voting," in which votes grow stronger the longer the remain with a particular choice, and greater stake in the system increases vote strength, among other properties. It has been [adopted](https://medium.com/giveth/conviction-voting-34019bd17b10) as part of the blockchain-based Commons Stack project.
-
-## Feedback loops
-
-### Sensitivities
-
-* Provides feedback closer to real-time
-* Reduces vulnerability to timed attacks on democratic deliberation
-
-### Oversights
-
-* No fixed terms of elected cohorts, reducing ability to plan for a session in office
-* Can instill greater insecurity among elected representatives
-
-## Implementations
-
-### Communities
-
-* [Commons Stack](https://commons-stack.gitbook.io/wiki/) (in development)
-* Various pirate parties using liquid democracy
-
-### Tools
-
-* [Democracy Earth](https://democracy.earth) implements liquid democracy
-
-## Further resources
-
-* [Delegation](delegation.md)
-* Kay. May 29, 2019. "[Conviction Voting: From ad-hoc voting to continuous voting](https://medium.com/giveth/conviction-voting-34019bd17b10)." Giveth blog.

_modules/disapproval_voting.md

@@ -1,9 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Disapproval voting
-permalink: /modules/disapproval_voting/
-summary: Votes are cast for the options voters do not want, and the option with the fewest votes wins.
-type: decision
----
-
-or, Negative voting

_modules/eloquence.md

@@ -1,53 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Eloquence
-permalink: /modules/eloquence/
-summary: An opportunity to persuade others with rhetorical effect.
-type: culture
----
-
-Eloquence is a graceful and artistic form of expression, associated strongly with oratory and public speaking. Unlike rhetoric, it does not aim to argue for a specific view based upon the three modes of persuasion—though an argumentative speech may indeed be eloquent, it is not fundamental to its meaning. Eloquence is described as the force of a certain delivery based on the manner of speaking or writing employed by the orator or author; it flows seamless and demonstrates a command of language.
-
-**Input:** comfort with language and communication; platform for speaking and writing; an intended audience
-
-**Output:** speech or piece of writing with appeal through the artistry of the chosen language and emotion it provokes
-
-## Background
-
-Notions of eloquence date back to ancient times. In Greek mythology, Calliope is a beautiful-voice muse of eloquence and epic poetry tutored by Apollo. 
-Cicero, a Roman statesman widely considered one of the greatest speakers of all time, writes about the necessity for style, flow, and conveying emotions in his dialogue “De Oratore” (55 BC). He finds eloquence one of the most powerful aspects of oratory, separate from the argumentative goals of rhetoric. Petrarch, a poet of the Italian Renaissance, taught eloquence as the ultimate goal in mastering language and communication.
-
-## Feedback loops
-
-### Sensitivities
-
-* Eloquence is connoted with politeness and morality, something that further separates it from rhetoric, which is often framed as unethical and manipulative
-* Provides the vehicle through which to deliver important logical and convincing content
-* Builds credibility for the speaker or author; aims to positively impact audience
-
-### Oversights
-
-* Eloquence can divert audiences from content and mask it in appealing yet superficial language
-* Can discourage audiences from thinking critically about important issues, as eloquent language may leave no room for contention 
-* The entirety of an individual’s qualifications may be undermined and render them poorly suited for the job in the eyes of the audience if they lack eloquence, despite their ability and aptitude in practice.
-
-## Implementations
-
-### Communities
-
-Eloquence is frequently associated with elections and political speeches. Known for their eloquence is a host of figures, political and otherwise, from Roman General Mark Antony to Martin Luther King Jr., from Barack Obama to Winston Churchill, from Margaret Thatcher to Oprah Winfrey.
-
-### Tools
-
-* [“The Art of Public Speaking”]( https://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Self-Development/Public-Speaking/The-Art-of-Public-Speaking/47818) by Dale Carnegie, available in audiobook
-* Ginger Public Speaking offers [free and low-cost courses]( https://www.gingerpublicspeaking.com/courses/free-online-courses-classes) in public speaking
-
-## Further resources
-
-O’Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (2002). Political eloquence. In The social psychology of politics (pp. 89-103). Springer, Boston, MA.
-
-Donoghue, D. (2008). On Eloquence. Yale University Press.
-
-Elbow, P. (2011;2012;). Vernacular eloquence: What speech can bring to writing. New York;Oxford;: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199782505.001.0001
-
-Gildenhard, I. (2011). Creative eloquence: The construction of reality in Cicero's speeches. Oxford: Oxford University Press

_modules/majority_voting.md

@@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Majority Voting
-permalink: /modules/majority_voting/
-summary: The option that receives more than half the vote wins; it none wins, a runoff occurs.
-type: decision
-config:
-    Threshold: ">50%"
-    Quorum:
-    Duration:
----
-
-Majority voting is an electoral system requiring a candidate to receive more than half of the votes cast to win and results in one single winner. Though associated with plurality voting, as they are both proportional representative systems, majority voting does not select a winner based on the most votes but on the candidate who receives more than fifty percent of the votes. If no one candidate receives half of the votes, either a runoff election is held between the two candidates with the most votes or an alternative vote or “majority preferential” system is used.
-
-**Input:** a position up for election; eligible voters; a specific candidate that receives at least half of the votes cast
-
-**Output:** a single victor who represents the will of the most voters
-
-## Background
-
-Majority voting has roots in the democracy of Ancient Greece when decisions were made by a popular assembly of eligible male voters. Limits existed on majority voting practices, however, to ensure the fair distribution of power among classes and interests through simultaneously giving proportionate representation to minority groups.
-
-The ideology of majority voting systems was later adopted by thinkers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for whom it represented equality and fairness due to equal valuation of individual votes. 
-
-
-## Feedback loops
-
-### Sensitivities
-
-* A majority rule is said to embody democratic ideals by representing the will of the most people
-* This system can lead to more middle-ground solutions, as it often represents the will of the median voter
-* It likely produces a stable government
-* It is apt to protect against oppressive governments
-
-### Oversights
-
-* These systems can fail to give minority groups any voice or proportional platform; it has been criticized as [“tyranny of the majority”]( https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/majority-rule-and-minority-rights/)
-* Minority parties have little chance at winning an election
-* This system can be manipulated by gerrymandering and border adjustment
-* Voters may choose a candidate who does not fully represent their beliefs, but whom they believe may have a better chance of winning as to not “waste” their vote
-
-## Implementations
-
-### Communities
-
-Democracies across the world utilize majority voting in some way, including Finland, Austria, France and Portugal. In the United States, a presidential candidate must have a majority of Electoral College votes to be elected. 
-
-This system is implemented in [many corporate governance systems]( https://www.covfinancialservices.com/2016/11/2017-proxy-season-preview-renewed-shareholder-push-for-majority-voting-in-director-elections-may-affect-more-small-and-middle-market-banks/), such as the [Council of Institutional Investors’ directorial elections]( https://www.cii.org/majority_voting_directors).
-
-### Tools
-
-* Algorithms such as the [Boyer—Moore majority vote algorithm]( https://algorithms.tutorialhorizon.com/majority-element-boyer-moore-majority-vote-algorithm/) or the [MJRTY majority vote algorithm]( https://medium.com/stephen-rambles/an-efficient-majority-vote-algorithm-3005722180d4) help determine if a majority exists in a list of votes.
-* A variety of simple poll tools exist online to facilitate majority voting. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram offer poll features while other websites such as Doodle Poll, EasyPolls, and Google offer tools for voting.
-
-## Further resources
-
-* Volk, K. G. (2014). Moral minorities and the making of American democracy. Oxford University Press.
-* Tullock, G. (1959). Problems of majority voting. Journal of political economy, 67(6), 571-579.
-* Rubinstein, A. (1980). Stability of decision systems under majority rule. Journal of Economic Theory, 23(2), 150-159.
-* Boyer, R. S., & Moore, J. S. (1991). MJRTY—a fast majority vote algorithm. In Automated Reasoning (pp. 105-117). Springer, Dordrecht.

_modules/mission.md

@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Mission
-permalink: /modules/mission/
-summary: A shared purpose is clearly defined.
-type: culture
----

_modules/origins.md

@@ -1,9 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Origins
-permalink: /modules/origins/
-summary: Communities may share a common origin story that helps explain shared norms.
-type: culture
-config:
-    Founding date:
----

_modules/platform.md

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Platform
-permalink: /modules/platform/
-summary: A statement expresses the commitments of a faction contending for authority.
-type: process
----
-
-
-<!--
-As in, party platforms, clarifying what a party stands for
-
-See also solidarity
--->

_modules/referendum.md

@@ -1,9 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Referendum
-permalink: /modules/referendum/
-summary: A decision is posed to the community's members at large.
-type: decision
-config:
-    Threshold: ">50%"
----

_modules/refusal.md

@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Refusal
-permalink: /modules/refusal/
-summary: Participants withdraw participation because of discontent.
-type: process
----

_modules/rough_consensus.md

@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Rough Consensus
-permalink: /modules/rough_consensus/
-summary: Decisions are made not through formal processes but through an informal sense of the group's shared will.
-type: decision
----

_modules/stake_weight.md

@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
----
-layout: module
-title: Stake Weight
-permalink: /modules/stake_weight/
-summary: Participants hold power in proportion to their investment in the organization.
-type: decision
----

_modules/tooling.md

@@ -2,6 +2,6 @@
 layout: module
 title: Tooling
 permalink: /modules/tooling/
-summary: Describe the tools which are used by teams.
+summary: Specific tools are available or necessary for participants to use.
 type: process
----
+---