H&D Meetup 1: Algorithmic Consensus - Revision history

Karl at 13:48, 31 January 2024

2024-01-31T13:48:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 31 January 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:
	[[File:Top CTA 02.jpg]]		[[File:Top CTA 02.jpg]]

	We asked participants of our meetups to read the [[~~H&D~~ Code of Conduct]] before attending our events.		We asked participants of our meetups to read the [[Code of Conduct]] before attending our events.

	Location: Framer Framed, Jitsi and H&D livestream (received upon rsvp)		Location: Framer Framed, Jitsi and H&D livestream (received upon rsvp)

Hd-onions: Hd-onions moved page H&D Meetup 1 Algorithmic Consensus to H&D Meetup 1: Algorithmic Consensus without leaving a redirect: consistency

2021-09-23T16:55:43Z

Hd-onions moved page H&D Meetup 1 Algorithmic Consensus to H&D Meetup 1: Algorithmic Consensus without leaving a redirect: consistency

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:55, 23 September 2021
(No difference)

Hd-onions at 16:55, 23 September 2021

2021-09-23T16:55:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 23 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Event		{{Event
	\|Name=H&D Meetup 1 Algorithmic Consensus		\|Name=H&D Meetup 1: Algorithmic Consensus
	\|Location=Framer Framed		\|Location=Framer Framed
	\|Date=2021/04/17		\|Date=2021/04/17

Hd-onions at 16:47, 23 September 2021

2021-09-23T16:47:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 23 September 2021
Line 30:		Line 30:

	===Talk recording===		===Talk recording===
	You can watch back the introduction by Anja and Margarita as well as the		You can watch back the introduction by Anja and Margarita as well as the talk by Angela.
	[https://drop.hackersanddesigners.nl/17-04-2021-intro-presentation.mp4 ~~talk by Angela~~].
			[https://drop.hackersanddesigners.nl/17-04-2021-intro-presentation.mp4 '''Watch -->'''].

	<gallery>		<gallery>

Hd-onions at 16:46, 23 September 2021

2021-09-23T16:46:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 23 September 2021
Line 28:		Line 28:

	Angela Jerardi contributed to the meetup by giving a contextual talk about the roots of consensus, as well as her experience of consensus practices in the context of large activist groups, and the Quaker movement.		Angela Jerardi contributed to the meetup by giving a contextual talk about the roots of consensus, as well as her experience of consensus practices in the context of large activist groups, and the Quaker movement.

			===Talk recording===
			You can watch back the introduction by Anja and Margarita as well as the
			[https://drop.hackersanddesigners.nl/17-04-2021-intro-presentation.mp4 talk by Angela].

	<gallery>		<gallery>
Line 71:		Line 75:

	Anja: You touched on this a bit in relation to time and in the slide about when '''not''' to use consensus. Do you have experience thinking about how to work through cultural differences in terms of consensus? what if people are approaching consensus from different base points of understanding?		Anja: You touched on this a bit in relation to time and in the slide about when '''not''' to use consensus. Do you have experience thinking about how to work through cultural differences in terms of consensus? what if people are approaching consensus from different base points of understanding?

	~~===Talk recording===~~
	~~You can watch back the introduction by Anja and Margarita as well as the~~
	~~[https://drop.hackersanddesigners.nl/17-04-2021-intro-presentation.mp4 talk by Angela].~~

	===Interesting practical consensus guide===		===Interesting practical consensus guide===

Hd-onions: /* Part 2 */

2021-09-23T16:34:44Z

Part 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 23 September 2021
Line 104:		Line 104:
	# Consensus decision making processes can help to create a less polarized online discourse (group two statement)		# Consensus decision making processes can help to create a less polarized online discourse (group two statement)
	# Consensus decision making is an inefficient way to come to an agreement in a group.		# Consensus decision making is an inefficient way to come to an agreement in a group.


			There were three moments of consensus on the platform. Everyone agreed with:
			# "One might say all online discourse has established it is polarization. Consensus might carry potential to create more nuance"
			# "Homogeneous groups might have an easier time agreeing on issues"
			# "A homogeneous group doesn't necessarily reach consensus, and a heterogeneous group doesn't necessarily have to be at odds."

			Someone asked, do you feel more together after aligning on these points of consensus?

	Cristina noticed that having her own statement come up and back to her felt like a bug at first, but in the end felt like it was a positive thing since it made her question her own statement		Cristina noticed that having her own statement come up and back to her felt like a bug at first, but in the end felt like it was a positive thing since it made her question her own statement
Line 114:		Line 122:

	Nienke introduced the idea of the consensus platform as a 'double checking method'. After a meeting it could be interesting to check if actually everyone was heard sufficiently. She also mentions that it is important to consider who 'designs' the statement that are put up for discussion.		Nienke introduced the idea of the consensus platform as a 'double checking method'. After a meeting it could be interesting to check if actually everyone was heard sufficiently. She also mentions that it is important to consider who 'designs' the statement that are put up for discussion.


	Generally participants thought it was not enough time to make statements and write them		Generally participants thought it was not enough time to make statements and write them
Line 121:		Line 128:
	Cristina added that it depends on the discussion, and proposed – if this were a tool for groups or collectives it would be great if they could set the time themselves.		Cristina added that it depends on the discussion, and proposed – if this were a tool for groups or collectives it would be great if they could set the time themselves.
	Valentina thought the risk (with the quickness of it all) is to subtly force people to come up with truisms rather than articulate complex statements		Valentina thought the risk (with the quickness of it all) is to subtly force people to come up with truisms rather than articulate complex statements
	~~> a~~ lot of people in the chat agreed with that.		A lot of people in the chat agreed with that.

	Comments from the chat:		'''Comments from the chat:'''
	* emirhakin (he/him)> there were very vague statements		* emirhakin (he/him)> there were very vague statements
	* Valentina (she/her) > responded later in the process that "it would also be helpful if we could sometimes respond with "maybe" which would basically be a request for further nuance or details, since some of these statements were vague or unclear"		* Valentina (she/her) > responded later in the process that "it would also be helpful if we could sometimes respond with "maybe" which would basically be a request for further nuance or details, since some of these statements were vague or unclear"


	~~There were three moments of consensus on the platform. The one everyone agreed with:~~		'''More comments and questions from the chat:'''
	~~# "one might say as online discourse has established it is about polarization. so its maybe more about consensus might carry potential to create more nuance"~~
	~~# "Homogeneous groups might have an easier time agreeing on issues"~~
	~~# "A homogeneous group doesn~~'~~t necessarily reach consensus, and a heterogeneous group doesn~~'~~t necessarily have to be at odds."~~

	~~Someone asked, do you feel more together after aligning on these points of consensus?~~

	More comments and questions from the chat:

	cristina (she/her) asked "which groups is this tool for?		cristina (she/her) asked "which groups is this tool for?
Line 143:		Line 143:
	frances (she/they) was struggling to spilt their mind between artist collective + union as they operate very differently yet are both groups		frances (she/they) was struggling to spilt their mind between artist collective + union as they operate very differently yet are both groups

	emirhan wanted to be able to reconsider previous statements.. going back is not possible or reiterate		emirhan wanted to be able to reconsider previous statements... going back is not possible or reiterate

	~~Sepp (he/him)noted he would also be able to type faster on a keyboard, but on a phone it just takes a bit more time.~~

	~~juju she/her~~

	~~> could we do this asynchronously and have a word limit? so instead of having limited time, there is a word limit instead~~
	~~> James responded that they have another version of the project where it lasts several days~~

	~~want to stare on the statement.. go back to it ..~~
	~~there are asynchronous editions of winwin~~

	~~emirhakin (he/him)~~
	~~I really like the first gesture - waiting for everyone and being aware of each other~~

			Sepp (he/him) noted he would also be able to type faster on a keyboard, but on a phone it just takes a bit more time.

	~~"group" what~~ do ~~we mean by~~ that?		juju she/her asked if it would be possible do this asynchronously and have a word limit? so instead of having limited time.
			James responded that they do have another version of the project where and it lasts several days

	~~Nienke: the moments of consensus are very important, but they have yet to work towards what to do with the final outcomes~~ (~~perhaps through a visualization~~)		emirhakin (he/him) really liked the first gesture - waiting for everyone to arrive, and being aware of each other
	~~> what does it mean to be online as a group?~~ the ~~friction of space where you do want~~ to ~~feel anonymous to be free~~, ~~but in a true social space you want to be connected~~

	~~looking into ways~~ to ~~form~~ a ~~group will be important... as part of the onboarding process.~~		Nienke said the moments of consensus are very important, but they are still working towards what to do with the final outcomes (perhaps through a visualization)

	~~Valentina (she/her): "perhaps the result is clarifying what the main values/assumptions of~~ a ~~given~~ group ~~are~~. ~~But for those results to be valuable~~ the ~~moments of non-consensus should be highlighted too" +1 from Angela~~		Looking into ways to form a group is also important... as part of the onboarding process.

	~~James:~~ the ~~technical idea behind WINWIN~~ is ~~that,~~ the ~~consensus should be maintained no matter the number~~ of ~~participants, and that even if the~~ group ~~changes or shift the system will~~ be ~~trying to maintain this~~		Valentina (she/her) wondered if the result is clarifying what the main values/assumptions of a given group are. Perhaps those results to be valuable the moments of non-consensus should be highlighted too" +1 from Angela
	* there is a friction between the ~~human side of consensus and the technological side~~ of consensus

	~~would there~~ be ~~ways~~ that ~~gorups could determine themselves what they want~~ to ~~discuss~~		James explained the technical idea behind WINWIN is that, the consensus should be maintained no matter the number of participants, and that even if the group changes or shifts, the system will be trying to maintain this.
	~~example: super majorities: 75 % could~~ be ~~sufficient~~		There seems to be a friction between the human side of consensus and the technological side of consensus

	going deeper into how is it that we are finding common ground.~~. focus more on agreements than consensus~~		Would there be ways that groups could determine themselves what they want to discuss and set conditions for consensus?
			Super majorities for instance: 75% might be be sufficient for some groups.
			This would be going deeper into how is it that we are finding common ground.

	cristina / ccl (she/her)		cristina / ccl (she/her) remarked that the anonymity made her think this the platform is intended for a collective of people who do not know each other very well. Knowing who said what could also lead to further conversations outside of this application and the possibility to follow up on disagreements.
	the anonymity ~~makes me~~ think this it is intended for a collective of people who do not know each other very well~~, otherwise knowing~~ who said what could also lead to further conversations outside of this application and the possibility to follow up on disagreements ~~outside of applications~~

Hd-onions: /* Talk recording */

2021-09-23T16:04:57Z

Talk recording

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 23 September 2021
Line 76:		Line 76:
	[https://drop.hackersanddesigners.nl/17-04-2021-intro-presentation.mp4 talk by Angela].		[https://drop.hackersanddesigners.nl/17-04-2021-intro-presentation.mp4 talk by Angela].

	Interesting practical consensus guide		===Interesting practical consensus guide===
	<gallery>		<gallery>
	consensus1.jpg		consensus1.jpg

Hd-onions at 16:03, 23 September 2021

2021-09-23T16:03:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 23 September 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|Print=No		\|Print=No
	}}		}}
			==Introduction==
	This first H&D meetup of 2021 focussed on tools for decision making. More specifically we looked at consensus as a concrete example, and explore the potentials and limitations of consensus practices for community organization, but also the ups and downs of algorithmic decision making platforms and technical infrastructures that are built upon the consensus model.		This first H&D meetup of 2021 focussed on tools for decision making. More specifically we looked at consensus as a concrete example, and explore the potentials and limitations of consensus practices for community organization, but also the ups and downs of algorithmic decision making platforms and technical infrastructures that are built upon the consensus model.

Hd-onions: /* Part 2 */

2021-09-23T16:03:23Z

Part 2

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 Following Angela's talk, the conversation took an interactive form with a smaller group of people, who represented different self-organized grassroots initiatives. This second part of the meetup was be led by [[James Bryan Graves]] and [[Nienke Huitenga]] who built a digital consensus platform  [https://www.winwin.zone WINWIN]. James and Nienke tried the platform in different contexts to see if consensus models could help to create a less polarized (online) debate culture. By testing this platform in action participants were able engage in a conversation and exchange about consensus – while using a platform that builds upon an consensus algorithm.
 '''Notes from the meetup'''
@@ Line 111: / Line 113: @@
 Nienke introduced the idea of the consensus platform as a 'double checking method'. After a meeting it could be interesting to check if actually everyone was heard sufficiently. She also mentions that it is important to consider who 'designs' the statement that are put up for discussion.

Hd-onions: /* Part 2 */

2021-09-23T15:47:50Z

Part 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:47, 23 September 2021
Line 94:		Line 94:
	'''Notes from the meetup'''		'''Notes from the meetup'''

	* algorithm checking for consensus		For the second part of the meetup we split into two groups, one that was watching the consensus algorithm in process, and the other group was taking part in it. After the discussion concluded the groups switched.
	* based on diving into the ~~conversation itself and~~ the ~~mechanisms of that, how it works, etc~~
	* we split into two groups, one that was watching the consensus process and the other was taking part in it
	* These were the statements we tried to reach consensus on:
	~~1. Consensus decision making is a more inclusive way of reaching agreement between all members of a group, than for instance majority models~~. ~~(group one statement)~~
	~~2. Consensus decision making processes can help to create a less polarized online discourse (group two statement)~~
	~~3. Consensus decision making is an inefficient way to come to an agreement in a group.~~
	* Cristina noticed that having her own statement come up and back to her felt like a bug at first, but in the ~~end felt like it was a positive thing since it made her question her own statement~~
	* Frederique (in the ~~second session with Nienke) was asking if, in this context, 'consensus' means 100% agreement~~
	* Nienke responded that in this context it is 100% agreement, but their thesis was about whether you could achieve more nuance by having smaller moments of consensus instead of just one big decision
	* Margarita comment; what is intersting is that it is not known who agrees and disagrees, James said this is by decision (very different from Angela's undersatnding of consensus
	* Sepp comment; the time you get to write the answers is quite short, so difficult to write something nuanced. ~~Is that the intention?~~
	* Nienke, our love for nuance creates rich responses, but it is difficult when the responses are very long, almost like essays
	* Nienke note that one of the vulnerabilities of this digital experinece is that you might lose track of the previous statements and where the supplementary statements came from

			These were the statements we tried to reach consensus on:

			# Consensus decision making is a more inclusive way of reaching agreement between all members of a group, than for instance majority models. (group one statement)
			# Consensus decision making processes can help to create a less polarized online discourse (group two statement)
			# Consensus decision making is an inefficient way to come to an agreement in a group.

			Cristina noticed that having her own statement come up and back to her felt like a bug at first, but in the end felt like it was a positive thing since it made her question her own statement
			Frederique (in the second session with Nienke) was asking if, in this context, 'consensus' means 100% agreement
			Nienke responded that in this context it is 100% agreement, but their thesis was about whether you could achieve more nuance by having smaller moments of consensus instead of just one big decision
			Margarita thought it was interesting that it is not known who agrees and disagrees. James said they had thought about that. This is quite a different approach from Angela's understanding of consensus
			Sepp commented the time you get to write the answers on the platform is quite short, so it is difficult to write something nuanced. He wondered if that was the intention?
			Nienke's intention was to create nuance and rich responses, but it is difficult when the responses are very long, almost like essays
			Nienke furthermore noted that one of the vulnerabilities of this digital experience is that you might lose track of the previous statements and where the supplementary statements came from

			Nienke introduced the idea of the consensus platform as a 'double checking method'. After a meeting it could be interesting to check if actually everyone was heard sufficiently. She also mentions that it is important to consider who 'designs' the statement that are put up for discussion.