@dllasoff your posts are too long and contain to many points for me to respond to everything. FYI Actually I find it hard to read them so I tend to give up part way, partly because of the lack of paragraphs.
I’ll respond to one point because I don’t think you’ve understood what I was trying to say. Maybe re-read my post and see if it needs classification. Anyway, you write:
It isn’t an assumption for me that those who make good decisions in the past will necessarily do so in the future;
Two things appear wrong with this to me.
-
As I read your proposal, people build up voting power by making contributions to the project. So you are arguing as if contributing is the same as making good decisions. To do this, you would need to reward people for the times they voted in a way that was later judged good, and vice versa. I’m other words, the link in your proposal between reward and quality of decision making is tenuous.
-
You seem to have missed my main point, which is that as a project evolves, it changes dramatically, and with that the needs of the project change, and it is not true to assume people who contributed lots at the start will always be the best contributors as time passes. For this reason I think it’s good to make it easy for people to move in and out as the match between them and project changes, and from what I understand, your proposal could inhibit this.
What do I suggest instead? I liked what @chadrickm wrote (quoted in my feedback), which sounds too me like the model he first linked to when introducing his ideas.