It took me a moment to realize this isn’t about lists, but about ranking of subjective values for a group. Start with Arrow’s Theorem, and that’s even without the problem of mapping multidimensional values onto a single ordinal ranking.
number 3 is really just punting the problem to “how do you pick rules that your selectorate agrees on”. If you had this agreement, then #1 would have worked. Or perhaps #3 is just #2 with a veneer of voting—the rulemaker is really deciding.
Also, you left off at least one actual working method for real-world ranking: bidding and payment. This translates nebulous personal values into a common measurement (the bidding currency, which may not be money—it could be time or some other resource). To some extent, this is voting model with unequal weighting.
In prioritizing stories at work, we use negotiation and consensus rather than strict voting, with a fallback to authority when necessary (rarely).
It took me a moment to realize this isn’t about lists, but about ranking of subjective values for a group. Start with Arrow’s Theorem, and that’s even without the problem of mapping multidimensional values onto a single ordinal ranking.
number 3 is really just punting the problem to “how do you pick rules that your selectorate agrees on”. If you had this agreement, then #1 would have worked. Or perhaps #3 is just #2 with a veneer of voting—the rulemaker is really deciding.
Also, you left off at least one actual working method for real-world ranking: bidding and payment. This translates nebulous personal values into a common measurement (the bidding currency, which may not be money—it could be time or some other resource). To some extent, this is voting model with unequal weighting.
In prioritizing stories at work, we use negotiation and consensus rather than strict voting, with a fallback to authority when necessary (rarely).