Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

jvs2: thoughts about shutting down voting system #125

Open
lagleki opened this issue Oct 22, 2014 · 2 comments
Open

jvs2: thoughts about shutting down voting system #125

lagleki opened this issue Oct 22, 2014 · 2 comments

Comments

@lagleki
Copy link
Contributor

lagleki commented Oct 22, 2014

the voting system in jvs 1.0 allows editing definitions without dropping the votes.
It means people vote for one definition but then the politician breaks his/her promises ...

Also the voting system implies any nintadni can vote any definition without passing Lojban Expertise Test.

Instead, I suggest that the voting system in jvs 2.0 should not exist. #121 should be implemented instead.
You can't edit a definition, you can only add a new one.
Alternatively, you can edit it but tags like "approved by la gleki" refer to a certain VERSION of the definition, not to the definition in general.
Editing definitions should produce notifications to the user (who approved of the older version) that a newer definition have been added so may be he/she would like to approve a newer version too.

When making filtered exports to .pdf (see #121) only the latest approved definition is to be included into the pdf.

@tsani
Copy link

tsani commented Feb 16, 2015

@durka and I thought about this somewhat when we discovered that the edit system currently in JVS is totally unsafe: anyone can edit anything and no record of the edits is maintained.
In JVS2, editing a definition could instead produce a copy so that the older one is maintained and hsitory can be tracked. The result is that the dictionary branches out into a tree-like structure. An official dictionary can be constructed by choosing one definition for each word as the official definition. This choice can either be made automatically via a voting system much like the current one, or a panel of lojbanists could be charged with reviewing definitions to select the official ones. With this history-tracking model, votes are tied to specific specific versions of definitions, and when someone creates a definition forked from an existing one, users having voted for the parent are (optionally) notified so that they may review their vote.

@lagleki
Copy link
Contributor Author

lagleki commented Feb 16, 2015

I closed issue #121 and replaced it with #131.

Tagging is used instead to produce dictionaries for the dialect that you mark with your own tags.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants