This is a great idea. I’d be excited for you to put together a post over time in public.
My initial suggestions for how to do this:
Change the title to say something like “Ongoing thoughts on proportional voting methods” or “[In progress] Proportional Voting Methods”. Also add a note to the top in italics that says something like “This post is a stub, I (Jameson) am updating it over the course of many weeks/months, if you read it and have questions please leave a comment.”
When you make substantive edits, leave a comment with a few bullets saying what you did, which will appear in recent discussion.
Once or twice, when you’ve finished a substantial addition of work (a whole new section, or a big restructuring), you can ping me and I’ll make it re-appear on the frontpage like a new post, for people to look over anew.
Here are my thoughts on your assumptions:
I think the first assumption is pretty good for writing down your thoughts. I’ll add to it that I think you should update a bit in response to discussion. If someone says “What exactly are you using consistency to show here?” answer them but don’t make a big edit to the post to explain it from first principles. If 5 people ask then add a paragraph or two of intuitive explanation before using it.
While democracy has clearly been an incredibly powerful invention, I’m not ultimately wedded to it, and can imagine many variants being better (futarchy is a nearby example). But as you say, I still expect to find this very interesting and useful.
I think that the essay is big enough and was very recently resubmitted such that people who re-read it will want a guide to the bits updated most recently, and otherwise will bounce off.
My guess is that for future resubmissions it would be good at the top to have a brief list of the main changes since it was last resubmitted. Something like:
---
List of updates since this was last submitted to the frontpage:
Section B: Redrew the diagram and gave a better explanation
Section D: Minor edits to the framing
Section E: Total rewrite
Section F: new section added!
--break--
Essay begins.
---
My current guess is that the main change is where you quote Thomas’s solution and your discussion of it? That only needs a short thing added to the top, but I think it’s probably important.
If I get three “pings”, now would be one. I think this has progressed far enough that a reader would begin to see the big ideas I’m driving at, and certainly far enough that I’d be ready for structural critiques. But if I only get two “pings”, then no; I still haven’t gotten to the biggest new idea or to either of the fun bits of historical trivia, and I’d want my two pings to be “at least two of those three” and “all done”.
This is a great idea. I’d be excited for you to put together a post over time in public.
My initial suggestions for how to do this:
Change the title to say something like “Ongoing thoughts on proportional voting methods” or “[In progress] Proportional Voting Methods”. Also add a note to the top in italics that says something like “This post is a stub, I (Jameson) am updating it over the course of many weeks/months, if you read it and have questions please leave a comment.”
When you make substantive edits, leave a comment with a few bullets saying what you did, which will appear in recent discussion.
Once or twice, when you’ve finished a substantial addition of work (a whole new section, or a big restructuring), you can ping me and I’ll make it re-appear on the frontpage like a new post, for people to look over anew.
Here are my thoughts on your assumptions:
I think the first assumption is pretty good for writing down your thoughts. I’ll add to it that I think you should update a bit in response to discussion. If someone says “What exactly are you using consistency to show here?” answer them but don’t make a big edit to the post to explain it from first principles. If 5 people ask then add a paragraph or two of intuitive explanation before using it.
While democracy has clearly been an incredibly powerful invention, I’m not ultimately wedded to it, and can imagine many variants being better (futarchy is a nearby example). But as you say, I still expect to find this very interesting and useful.
Ping 2.5 of 3; that is, unexpectedly, I got input that superceded the old ping 2 of 3, and I’ve now incorporated it.
I think that the essay is big enough and was very recently resubmitted such that people who re-read it will want a guide to the bits updated most recently, and otherwise will bounce off.
My guess is that for future resubmissions it would be good at the top to have a brief list of the main changes since it was last resubmitted. Something like:
---
List of updates since this was last submitted to the frontpage:
Section B: Redrew the diagram and gave a better explanation
Section D: Minor edits to the framing
Section E: Total rewrite
Section F: new section added!
--break--
Essay begins.
---
My current guess is that the main change is where you quote Thomas’s solution and your discussion of it? That only needs a short thing added to the top, but I think it’s probably important.
Can you try that?
Done.
Resubmitted. Pardon the delay.
Ping 2 of 3
Done.
If I get three “pings”, now would be one. I think this has progressed far enough that a reader would begin to see the big ideas I’m driving at, and certainly far enough that I’d be ready for structural critiques. But if I only get two “pings”, then no; I still haven’t gotten to the biggest new idea or to either of the fun bits of historical trivia, and I’d want my two pings to be “at least two of those three” and “all done”.
I have “pinged” it. I also added a note to the top that I feel will help people orient, though you’re welcome to edit it.