Propose new functionalities for Decidim software

I am moving here a debate that I opened in github (4 days ago) and no one has answered yet. I don't understand why the amendment can be supported/voted. We vote proposals, no amendments. In my point of view, I can't find reasons to do it. Moreover, it's going to be a problem. 1) I can vote an amendment to amend a proposal because I think that it will improve the proposal. But if this amend became a proposal, maybe I don't agree with that. When became a proposal, it will keep supports from it was an amend? 2) At least, is the author who decided if accept an amendment . So, why we need to vote? If the community wants that amendment, they can endorse as a demonstration of its agreement. Can you explain me the reason? Thanks!

I want to open a debate we hold long ago regarding the convenience of using Markdown for some content creation in diferent components (mostly Meeting minutes, proposals and debates). It would be very useful to track changes and also to integrate Decidim with other technologies (like Git or etherpads).

Hi everyone, Last days we have discussed about showing or not your options when you answer a survey. On the first hand, as a user, I would like to see my answers. On the other hand maybe does not comply with data protection. What do you think?

I am moving here a debate that we opened in github (a while ago!) and that we have not yet closed, although several valuable contributions have been made. Here I link the relevant issues for further discussion with the whole community: https://github.com/decidim/decidim/issues/2023 (here @xabier provided an schema of possible permissions and roles) https://github.com/decidim/decidim/issues/2056 (includes this gist from @mrcasals about module permissions and actions: https://gist.github.com/mrcasals/94503cebfd34b690ca10ab614557d5e8

The Admin Dashboard is currently empty. This debate opens the question of what should the admin dashboard include. Please add your suggestions bellow. El Panel de Control, Pizarra o Dashboard de administración está vacío. Este debate abre la cuestión de qué elementos debería de incluir. Incluye tus sugerencias en los comentarios

[EN] Yesterday, I started a debate with @carol about the definition of participant. I understand that Decidim, as a political network, all users are participants (main difference with a social network). With what I do not agree, it is that the states on the main page and the metrics of a participatory process use the same concept when it is calculated differently. I think this goes against the user's experience since it can lead to confusion. With that, I do not question that the states on the main page use the "participant" word. But I think it is not right to say participants to the metrics. That's why I think we should find another word. An example could be "involved". Participating is defined as "acting, together with other people, in a success, an act or activity, generally with the same level of involvement." On the other hand, currently the metrics of the participatory process define a "participant" as: * Create a proposal * Create a debate * Answer a survey * Leave a comment * Give support to a proposal * Endorse * Vote for participatory budgeting project I think it's incomplete. Registration is missing. Another may be missing. [ES] Ayer, inicié un debate con @carol sobre la definición de participante. Entiendo que Decidimos, al ser una red política, todos los usuarios son participantes (principal diferencia con una red social). Con lo que no estoy de acuerdo, es que los estados de la página principal y las métricas de un proceso participativo utilicen el mismo concepto cuando se calcula de forma diferente. Opino que esto va contra la experiencia del usuario ya que puede llevar a confusión. Con ello, no cuestiono que los estados de la página principal utilice la palabra participante. Pero creo que no es acertado decir participantes en las métricas. Es por eso que creo que deberíamos encontrar otra palabra. Un ejemplo podría ser implicados. Participar, se define como "actuar, junto con otras personas, en un suceso, un acta o una actividad, generalmente con el mismo nivel de implicación". Por otro lado, actualmente las métricas del proceso participativo definen un "participante" como: * Crear una propuesta * Crear un debate * Contestar una encuesta * Hacer un comentario * Dar soporte a una Propuesta * adherirse * Votar Presupuestos participativos Creo que es incompleto. Falta la inscripción a un encuentro. Puede ser que falte algún otro.

I have been using the functionality of the amendments and I have some questions that I would like to know your opinion: Does it make sense that the functionality of amendments is only general? Now, we can only configure the amendments in general. It can not be enabled or disabled depending on the participation phase. Should we be able to? If on the first question do you think it makes sense as it is now, how could we fix the following situation? Imagine a 3-phase process. The first phase participants create the proposals. The second phase participants can make amendments. And the third phase participants vote. In the second phase, we have deactivated the creation of proposals. Even so, a participant makes an amendment that is not accepted. This amendment is promoted by proposal. Does it make sense that, even if the amendment is not accepted, can it be promoted as a proposal even if the creation phase of proposals is closed? Could it not lead to malicious uses? I understand that when we use participatory texts and we have a text that can be amended, there has not been a preliminary phase of proposals. In this case, it does make sense to promote the amendment on a proposal. But if we are faced with a participatory process that wants to make an amendment phase with citizen proposals, it may be pointless to promote an amendment if the creation of proposals is disabled. What do you think?

Dear community, I recently presented decidim and it's functionality to my supervisors. One remark that came up pretty quickly is the possibility to moderate content before being published. I know that there is the possibility to flag content as inappropriate and then to hide it. However, the concern came up that offensive comments or proposals posted in the evening or on Sundays will be online at least until the next working day (and if the moderators are out of office even longer). Would a module that gives ability to moderate content before publishing violate against decidim's social contract and thus negotiating the possibility of using decidim as participatory platform? Best wishes, Eduard