Voting system

Chive uses a weighted voting system where expertise in the relevant domain increases vote influence. This ensures that specialists have greater say in their fields while maintaining community participation.

Voter tiers

Tier	Weight	Criteria
Community member	1.0x	Any authenticated user
Active contributor	1.5x	10+ preprints or 20+ reviews
Domain expert	2.5x	Publications in the proposal's field
Trusted editor	3.5x	Appointed by governance committee
Authority editor	4.5x	Library science credentials (MLIS/equivalent)

How weight is calculated

function calculateVoteWeight(voter: Voter, proposal: Proposal): number {
  let weight = 1.0;  // Base weight

  if (voter.preprintCount >= 10 || voter.reviewCount >= 20) {
    weight = 1.5;  // Active contributor
  }

  if (hasPublicationsInField(voter, proposal.field)) {
    weight = 2.5;  // Domain expert
  }

  if (voter.isTrustedEditor) {
    weight = 3.5;  // Trusted editor
  }

  if (voter.isAuthorityEditor) {
    weight = 4.5;  // Authority editor
  }

  return weight;
}

Note: Weights do not stack. The highest applicable tier is used.

Approval thresholds

Different proposal types require different levels of consensus:

Proposal type	Approval threshold	Minimum votes	Expert votes required
Create field	67%	5	3
Update field	60%	3	2
Merge fields	67%	5	3
Deprecate field	75%	7	4
Facet proposal	60%	3	2
Authority change	75%	7	5
Tag promotion	60%	3	2

Threshold calculation

Approval percentage = (Weighted approve votes) / (Weighted total votes) × 100

Example:

Votes:
- 3 community members approve (3 × 1.0 = 3.0)
- 2 domain experts approve (2 × 2.5 = 5.0)
- 1 trusted editor rejects (1 × 3.5 = 3.5)

Weighted approve: 3.0 + 5.0 = 8.0
Weighted total: 3.0 + 5.0 + 3.5 = 11.5
Approval: 8.0 / 11.5 = 69.6%

For a "Create field" proposal (67% threshold): APPROVED

Quorum requirements

Proposals require minimum participation before voting closes:

Proposal type	Minimum voters	Minimum weighted votes
Field proposals	5	8.0
Facet proposals	3	5.0
Authority changes	7	15.0
Tag promotion	3	4.0

If quorum is not met, the voting period extends by 3 days (up to 2 extensions).

Expert vote requirements

Some proposals require endorsement from domain experts:

Expert vote = Vote from user with publications in the proposal's field
            OR trusted/authority editor with relevant expertise

This prevents:

• Gaming by coordinated low-expertise voters
• Fields being created without specialist input
• Authority records changing without librarian review

Voting periods

Phase	Duration
Discussion	7 days
Voting	5 days
Extensions (if no quorum)	3 days each (max 2)

Timeline example

Day 1:  Proposal submitted
Day 1-7: Discussion period (comments, revisions)
Day 8:  Voting opens
Day 12: Voting closes (if quorum met)
        OR
Day 12: First extension begins
Day 15: Voting closes (if quorum met)
        OR
Day 15: Second extension begins
Day 18: Voting closes (final, regardless of quorum)

Consensus detection

For non-contentious changes, early consensus can shorten the voting period:

Early consensus criteria:
- 80%+ weighted approval
- Quorum exceeded by 50%
- No expert votes against
- Minimum 48 hours elapsed

If all criteria are met, the proposal is approved immediately.

Abstention and recusal

Action	When to use	Effect
Abstain	Insufficient knowledge to vote	Not counted in percentage
Recuse	Conflict of interest	Cannot vote; documented

Abstentions do not count toward quorum weighted votes but do count toward minimum voters.

Vote changes

Voters can change their vote during the voting period:

• Only the final vote counts
• Vote history is recorded for transparency
• Changes after voting closes are not accepted

Tie breaking

If weighted votes are exactly tied:

1. Extend voting by 48 hours
2. If still tied, status quo prevails (proposal rejected)
3. Proposer may revise and resubmit

Special voting rules

Controversial proposals

Proposals flagged as controversial (10+ comments with opposing views) receive:

• Extended discussion period (14 days instead of 7)
• Higher threshold (+10% to base threshold)
• Mandatory governance committee review

Emergency proposals

For urgent security or legal issues:

• 24-hour expedited voting
• Governance committee approval required
• Must still meet thresholds
• Documented justification required

Procedural votes

Meta-governance changes (changing thresholds, adding tiers) require:

• 80% approval threshold
• 10+ minimum votes
• Governance committee endorsement
• 30-day implementation delay

Transparency

All voting data is public:

{
  "proposalId": "proposal-123",
  "votes": [
    {
      "voter": "did:plc:voter1...",
      "vote": "approve",
      "weight": 2.5,
      "tier": "domain_expert",
      "timestamp": "2025-01-15T10:30:00Z"
    }
  ],
  "summary": {
    "approve": 8,
    "reject": 2,
    "abstain": 1,
    "weightedApprove": 18.5,
    "weightedReject": 4.0,
    "approvalPercentage": 82.2
  }
}

Next steps

• Proposals: How to create and submit proposals
• Authority control: Special rules for authority records
• Governance overview: The big picture