And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.
This is the tricky part, at least for me. Could you please explain in plain language how exactly it could work?
Yes, this is the specific part that Canonizer.com does, and it should be integrated with the rest of the vote DAC systems, as you describe. No need to duplicate effort.
And I love the algorithmic voting and such ideas LuckyBit is proposing. Yes, I am the founder of Canonizer.com, and it would be great to either interface Canonizer.com into something you are proposing. Send me an e-mail and help me better understand the details of your great ideas.
As far as the Canonizer consensus building methodolodgy, it helps to start with what is the ultimate goal. Rather than having 1000 individual posts, by 1000 individuals, The goal is to have a concise, quantitative, hierarchical representation of what everyone is currently thinking, with the fewest possible camps, with the most people in each. The focus always being for each camp, what would it take to convert you to another camp. In other words, what kind of experimental results would falsify your theory, and convert you. Or what would another POV have to give up, to get you on board. Then you work on doing those experiments, continually reducing the number of camps, till there is a unanimous consensus.
Any One person starts the survey by putting up the purpose or goals of the survey topic in the root or top camp, then they create the first sub camp describing what they think they currently want/believe/predict. Then when others come, they assume what is there now, is the yet to be completed consensus of the crowd. You can assume you are an expert, and are the first participator that has justification for a new and better way than what is there now. So you propose changing things accordingly. Proposed changes go into review for 1 week, and if no supporters of the camp objects, your changes go live, ensuring unanimous consensus of all camp supporters.
If someone does object, you can start the negotiation process to find a way to state things that everyone agrees with. If this is not possible, you can keep what you agree on (usually the most important issues) in a supper camp, and push the disagreeable issues into supporting sub camps.
If one person is objecting to a change everyone else wants to make, everyone else can threaten to fork and jump to the new camp, leaving the lone objector in a camp that will then be filtered out by most people. Keeping as much consensus as possible motivates people to work as hard as possible finding creative ways to keep the consensus.
There is much more than this, and if you see problems, we have likely also solved those. So just keep asking questions, if you still see other issues.
For those that don't yet know, I've started a survey topic for the single issue of BTS dilution here:
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/160And I've created a camp expressing what I believe. If your camp is already there, you just cast your vote by joining the camp, possibly improving it if you want. Otherwise, if your view isn't there yet, you start a new camp so others that agree can find you and help.