[top-politics] Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk — 2006-12-27 16:10:17+0100

Gordan Ponjavic wrote:

> I assume your software is developed for large organizations with > hundreds of members. I assume your software is developed for bottom-up, > grassroots principle where elected leaders are direct product of ad hoc > group decision which is possible thanks to internet.

It’s developed almost purely as a propaganda project with the main objective to increase political awareness and increase survelliance of existing politicians.

> OK. There is probably too many assumptions, that are even not important > ones. What I find important is: Is your party based on rigid, hard to > diminish hierarchies or on fluid ones where no one can be to certain? > If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enable > mass communication of hundreds of members without having too much > non-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?

Read more… / Lire plus…

I currently don’t have any issues like the ones you describe above, normally I prefer to solve problems when I actually got them. But would be interesting to know how filters would solve this problem ?

> I understand that I have no clue what exact political model you had in > mind when you started developing this software, so maybe, if these > questions are too abstract, we could start in that way?

A paradigm shift to some sort of direct democracy, and I belive that a portal for political parties that can lets them make decisions online can result in many different poltical models.

Kind regards
Pether

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

AbdLomax — 2006-12-21 04:31:24+0100

At 09:34 AM 12/20/2006, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:

>If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enable >mass communication of hundreds of members without having too much >non-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?

Obviously, you don’t, that is, if everyone can present everyone else with a message, and the group is large enough, everyone is overwhelmed with traffic.

There are obvious solutions in common use, but we think that it is very important to develop solutions that don’t depend so much on a benevolent dictator, i.e., a group moderator.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Moderators there will be, but, as it is stated in the AA Traditions, “Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern.” If the whole group could walk and quickly reassemble, a rogue moderator would do no harm.

So we envision hierarchies of lists, if it is mailing lists we are talking about.

There are base lists, with relatively few subscribers, few enough that traffic does not overwhelm subscribers. These base lists may be moderated by proxies; there would be many of them in a large organization. Essentially, you can name a proxy and the proxy admits you to his or her list. And maybe even to a list above that, i.e., the list of your proxy’s proxy. This latter list you may read, but you don’t have the right, necessarily, to post to it without approval.

There is a top level list in an organization. Actually, there can be more than one, but I won’t go into that complication. A top level list would typically be open for subscription by any member of the organization. It may conduct polls and any member may vote in them. But the list is moderated; the only people who can post without moderation are high-level proxies, proxies representing a certain minimum number of members, directly or indirectly. There may also be other list members who may post, having been granted the privilege by vote, without being high-level proxies.

The point is that this high-level list is rather closely moderated. If members with posting privileges abuse them, any member who likewise has such privileges may object. Standard Robert’s Rules meeting process has procedures for this…. and members can lose their privileges; they can lose them administratively (i.e., as a decision ad-hoc by a moderator) and it remains democratic if they have the right of appeal. Appeal is to the whole “meeting,” but it might be on a separate list maintained for that purpose. Generally, if the organization is TOP, members would know if censorship was going on. It is not censorship, per se, which is the problem, it is hidden censorship, censorship without due process.

Standard democratic process exists for all this; the trick is to make that process scalable; and delegable proxy is the only solution I’ve seen which does not involve excluding large groups of people from participation and from representation. In theory. We have not seen large-scale DP yet. Soon, hopefully!

[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-12-20 15:34:25+0100

I assume your software is developed for large organizations with hundreds of members. I assume your software is developed for bottom-up, grassroots principle where elected leaders are direct product of ad hoc group decision which is possible thanks to internet.

OK. There is probably too many assumptions, that are even not important ones. What I find important is: Is your party based on rigid, hard to diminish hierarchies or on fluid ones where no one can be to certain? If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enable mass communication of hundreds of members without having too much non-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?

I understand that I have no clue what exact political model you had in mind when you started developing this software, so maybe, if these questions are too abstract, we could start in that way?

ATB;
Gale

Read more… / Lire plus…

[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk — 2006-12-20 13:51:39+0100

So what do you mean with filters ? Still don’t understand your question.

Pether

[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-12-19 22:37:28+0100

So, how are you going to enable transparent communication on the larger scales with no filters? Or you base your software on top-down hierarchy?

[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk — 2006-12-19 19:11:25+0100

Hi Gale,

Gordan Ponjavic wrote:

> pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Do you have public filters in your software integrated?

Not sure what you mean with public filters, but don’t have any filters implemented except security filters
for the web requests.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Only admin screens an a few others that will be protected by security.

Pether

[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-12-19 18:29:10+0100

pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> Done some work with the user interface and change the look & added some > more icons.. > > Screenshot avaible below. > > https://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=115046 > > Still on target to release the alpha-release later this month. > > Pether

Hey Peter!

Read more… / Lire plus…

Do you have public filters in your software integrated?

ATB,
Gale