[cyrnel]

I appreciate the attempt to bring structure to meetings. I agree structure is necessary, but I feel like the article is committing the same sin that it decries: "rewarding A but hoping for B"

If you blindly rebalance meetings based on "caucus score", you'll get less ideas from the loud people and more ideas from the quiet people ("A"). You won't necessarily get better ideas overall ("B").

IMO, the "floor" should be given primarily to people with a track record of clearly and concisely expressing novel and good ideas, no matter how loud or quiet those people are. Figuring out who those people are is hard and probably can't be nicely described in a blog post.

No one has a meaningful contribution for every topic, and most people don't have the self-awareness to know whether their contribution is meaningful or not. Any good meeting structure has to be able to handle that common situation in a safe and healthy way.