[ghc-steering-committee] #380 GHC2021: Forth status update / kialo.com

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 15.12.2020, 21:44 +0000 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> I just tried Kialo, and couldn't warm to it -- despite being excited to try.
> 
> + I really like its way of encouraging individual pros and cons, and
> how these are kept short and independent.
> 
> - I can't get *any* forest, only lots and lots of trees.

I agree it’s odd that there is no comprehensive view of all claims.
Maybe because it’s designed for much larger discussions, where that
would be prohibitive.

Did you find the circular red/green icon in the top left? If you click
that you get some visualization of the whole thing.

> - There seems to be no visual indication (to me) of when a node has
> sub-nodes. For example, if I read a "con" that itself has 5 "cons"
> underneath, I wouldn't know unless I click on it.

It’s not very obvious, but a claim with no subclaims is simply a white
box, whereas a claim with subclaims is rendered as a white box with
another white box beneath it, slightly offset (like a stack of papers).

> - There doesn't seem to be a way to agree with an argument, without
> adding a distinct "pro". This means that if a post is liked by 8 of
> us and disliked (for different reasons) by 3, there would be 3 cons
> against it, no pros, and a misrepresentation of our communal opinion.

It’s not a voting tool. It is a way to map out the arguments, and
(maybe) more easily appreciate and take in the facets of the discussion
than other forms.

That said, Kialo has an optional “voting” feature, where you can rate
the “impact” of each claim (i.e. how strongly a pro or con claim
affects its parent claim).
https://support.kialo.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000705652-About-Voting
I’ll enable it, maybe it’s useful.

> In its current form, Kialo seems best as a way to organize pros and
> cons, but to actually have debate elsewhere. If someone out there
> knows how to mitigate the cons above, I'd be interested.

You can also comment on individual claims; maybe best if a claim is
incorrect or vague or needs to be clarified. That’s a form of debate.

Other than that, do we _need_ a debate? Or do we “just” need a good way
to collect and refine the pros and cons of each option, so that every
committee member can make a well-informed vote?

Note that we are not having a technical decision. There is no right or
wrong in including TupleSections in GHC2021. There are benefits and
downsides (and kialo might be better to collect them than a linear
medium like email), but in the end it’s all opinion based.

Cheers,
Joachim


-- 
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/