WeDecide Information Technology

TL;DR : The system must reward learning and avoid careless decision making that often occurs in traditional meetings. Different proposals require different amounts of time and scrutiny.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that all proposals are going through the predefined stages in lock-step.

This isn't going to work. No one is going to evaluate 84 proposals in a single 'window'. And as I argue below - nor should they!

A machine-mediated proposal manager should not be limited to the constraints of a traditional meeting. In fact, that is the whole point, yes? The entire process is free to be continuous.

To that end, members should be discouraged from voting on proposals with which they are not familiar (or even care). Above all else, the system should reward learning. To accomplish this, it should discourage people from 'cramming' their attention and judgment into a limited period. Natural selection will follow: people who care enough about a specific proposal will know where in its lifecycle it is. So the decision can be taken on any day of the week. Jumbling the decisions all together invites ignorance and promotes 'opinion-based thinking'.

If a proposal needs a longer amount of time than the average, it is crucial that it not be swept along in the breeze. Similarly, if some decisions can be made quickly and require less learning or scrutiny, why hold them back?

So I suggest that each proposal should go through a life-cycle independent of other proposals and be automatically sent to the next step in its life-cycle only when it meets predetermined milestones.