Identity
Filter
Visitors
(2) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 25/09 19:51 +3 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 29/09 01:44 +2 The state of parlement
- 19/09 15:41 +2 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 19/09 05:33 +2 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 16/09 19:05 +2 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 07/12 20:17 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 05/12 23:42 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 02/12 00:31 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 28/11 10:39 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 22:43 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
Latest posts
- 07/12 20:17 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 05/12 23:42 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 02/12 00:31 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 28/11 10:39 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 22:43 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 27/11 13:08 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 25/11 00:54 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 24/11 15:53 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 22:29 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 10/11 10:14 +1 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
-
13/09/06 15:39
Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
Dear group members,
In a phone conversation Gale and me agreed that I should create a systematization of the discusion about the definition of TOP to see which parts are essentially important to us.
Since we agreed on two things (if I understood right) about the way how should the definition be achieved: (1) Strategic planning (Where we are now?, Where we want to be? How we plan to get there?) and (2) Autopoietic (OpenSource) approach through editing and adding content to the definition we have on the wiki (http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP). Also we agreed (correct me if I am wrong) on the answers to the first two questions of strategic planning (Where we are now and Where we want to be) where the answers were that we are in a position where we don’t have a good definition of TOP and we want a definition behind which we will stand 100%. This answers are only part I know, but let me elaborate further. Now, lets see how we can achieve the stated in the first two questions (e.g. get the answer to the third question).
First let me try to state which essential parts came into play during disscussion.In the threads “First goal: Definition of
TOP” (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/4a54bfb6539f7049/#), “Definition of TOP” (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/2601aa9e132fd542/#), “What can 4 of us actually do? / What does TOP mean to you?” (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418?tvc=1) and “Definition of TOP – need to finish our
goal” (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/303d810256bedea6/36be706d548fff27#36be706d548fff27) the following issues came to attention which I try to systemize and on which should be decided:I. Document elements:
i. The opinion that internet and politics will integrate with one another in some ways
ii. Gaining some political importance and attract attention
iii. Change the way information in political processes is shared
iv. Change the way people can enter in politics
v. How politics should be held on the internet, or using the internet
vi. Set of rules person/organsation had to carry out if it wants to act in TOP manner
vii. Transparent action includes publishing, explaining and documenting appropriate documents of its vision, mission and goal statements of action including plans and strategies on how to accomplish them. This documents also include discussion templates, results, conclusions etc.
viii. The main goal of transparent action is a elaborated, total and integral decision making process transparent and available to the public.
ix. A person, organization or option should have a public forum where the public can comment the persons, organizations or options action. This forum must have a fully non censored public part which is continuously and in a line on-line available. Information on this forum should be public and allways available for later references e.g. it should be replicable.
x. Open action is such action on which the public has influence i.e. action which can be changed by the public under the condition that the result of such a change is open again.
xi. Open action gives every person, option or organization the opportunity of process involvement.
xii. If some person, option or organization wants to act open, it has to insure continuous contact and discussion with the public. This is in accordance with the concept of a forum where the public has the opportunity to discus and where every single individual is involved through a clearly distinguishable criteria.
xiii. Every document created through transparent and public action is thus openstanding.
xiv. Every person, option or organization should take every meaningful critique, suggestion, comment and idea of the public, discus it and, if they find it usefull, include it an the appropriate document.
xv. Public action is such action which is available to the public, allways and at will and which is oriented towards the public.
xvi. If a person, option or organization wants to act public it has to insure continuous public availability of information about their action.
xvii. Public available information is information which is publicly available in a clearly articulated form. This information should be available to everyone interested in it over the Internet. This information can be available through other mediae but the Internet is obligatory.
xviii. Any official action should be documented in the appropriate document.
xix. A person, option or organization is TOP and can thus become a certificate if its action is transparent, open and public according to the definition of TOP and has an elaborated integral decision making process.
xx. TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business.
xxi. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.
xxii. TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public officials or on public matters among private individuals.
xxiii. Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.
xxv. Transparent means that every decision and/or project fullfiled by a political organization, individual or initiative should be fully documented so every interested individual can follow the reasons any decision was made.Transparent means to me that every decision and/or project fullfiled by a political organization, individual or initiative should be fully documented so every interested individual can follow the reasons any decision was made.
xxvi. Open means open in the sense of OpenSource. Every project and/or decision fullfiled by a political organization, individual and/or initiative should be open for participation for every interested individual. This means that every person who wants to can and should participate.
xxvii. Public means that every decision and/or project fullfiled by a political organization, individual and/or initiative should be public available and oriented towards the public.
xxviii. TOP are principles that define how politics should evolve in the coming times. They apply on the processes themselves, the electronic processes. It’s a basis of democracy on the net.
xxix. There is one test which would validate the application of transparency => replicability. Anybody should be able to copy in real time a political process that applies the transparency principles. Replicability is a test proving this state of fact.
xxx. Open participation is to allow anybody to enter in the process. No barrier to entry.
xxxi. There are exceptions to TOP: * a personal password or PGP private key can be kept private * participating in an electoral process does not imply to be counted (or that would allow easy cheating on a large scale using electronic persona) * the relationship between a physical identity and a persona can be kept secret * national security, “raison d’état” That last point is highly dubious, machiavel did say that everything in the state was a matter of “raison d’état”. Thus it should be very strictly circumvented.
xxxii. There is one test that could be useful: everything recorded has to be made public.
xxxiii. All important decisions must be fully transparent. The whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders.
xxxiv. There shall be no prohibition of public employees from having private discussion on any public matter.
xxxv. All government recorded information should be made public.
xxxvi. All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be replicated in real time
xxxvii. Transparent, open and public principles supplement each other in defining the fundamental standards of a genuinely democratic organization.
xxxviii. A transparent organization must ensure full, accurate, and timely disclosure of actions and information. Its actions and their justifications must remain intelligible and clear. Users are able to fully audit any decision, information, process or other feature of the organization. It therefore implies keeping a record of discussions, decisions, documents and any other supporting material in an accessible format. An elaborated, total and integral decision making process must be defined in accordance with TOP principles. Practically, one who doesn’t know anything about the organization should be able to gain full knowledge of it, to the point that the organization and its information could be duplicated should one wish to do so.
xxxix. An open organization, process, action or otherwise can be changed by any person or entity under the condition that the result of such a change remains open. Open action gives every person or entity the opportunity to get involved in the process and propose alterations. This implies that any open system must be opensource. Furthermore, discussions, processes, deliberations, documents and any other feature must remain openstanding.
xl. A public organization, its processes, information and actions must be accessible without censorship or restrictions to any member of the public. Accessibility must be ensured at all times over the internet. Information must be organized so as to allow quick and effective access. Public information should be available in a clearly articulated form so as to be accessible to non-specialists. An uncensored public forum must be made available for comments on the organization itself. This forum must be maintained so that it remains transparent, open and public according to the definitions in this document.
xli. An entity is TOP and can thus become a certificate if it demonstrates it functions in accordance with transparent, open and public principles according to this document and has an elaborated integral decision making process.
II. Document structure:
i. Different aspects of TOP (political, sociological, psychological, organizational, philosophical etc.)
ii. Three essential parts of TOP transparency, openness and publicity.
III. Important issues to consider:
i. The definition needs to be clear and catchy in order to penetrate easilyii. A good definition of TOP is an important start. Decisionmaking should be the next step.
iii. The definition should guide our future actions
iv. All of us should stand behind the definition 100%
v. The categories of transparent, open and public action are interconnected, they supplement each other since none of them embraces the whole field needed by this idea
vi. There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet.
vii. Are there any exceptions to the TOP Principles? Perhaps: 1 The Secrecy of the Vote; 2 National security and state secrets; and 3 Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public. For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet. In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens’ Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.
viii. Informal consultations could be very harmful to the later stages since what’s concluded and decided in such closed halls could put a totally wrong agenda when it comes to public opinion and participation. Shortly spoken: The privilege of problem formulae should not be kept by the inner circles.
ix. We should set up standards that can easily distinct initiatives that enable public participation from those that do not.
x. articulation of individuals who set some policies. More info we have, more people can support such policies with no fear of loosing of public support. If there are some “mystery” issues that individuals do not find appropriate due to any reason to public, the way to realize them is putting their word, their reputation on probation. So, it is up to the public should they legitimate those mystery ones, or those fully transparent.
xi. Silence majority concept leads to schizophrenia of power, making the whole process being declarative, not real one. If we want to create system be fully legitimated, it needs to mediate the power as clear as possible in order to preserve its status. If it is not being done, power disharmony tends to destroy legitimacy of such a system.
xii. TOP as a framework for political action. TOP should be the reason that will allow good people to behave good and reward them for being good (by saying good I mean it in the broadest sense of the word).
xiii. Decision making for setting policies has to be TOP. What about running operational processes, here comes the question. I suppose it is up to the body. If the body is some public object, we might not care about what is being done inside it if it does not want to be runned publicly. If it wants, I suppose we should support it also.
xiv. TOP must disable opportunistic behavior in order to succeed.
xv. An important issue about information control is that it is decentralized, dissabling creation of the centers that are obviously superior to those who are not informed.
xvi. The idea of an infrastructure which would allow “closing inside openness”. To “close” organizations/individuals/initiatives (oii’s) there should be something like a licence which would allow the use of TOP information only by TOP certified oii’s. Thus the infrastructure consists of a licence, a standard and a certificate as elaborated some time ago on this group. In this way TOP oii’s would be in some way protected against nonTOP oii’s. How to articulate such a standard and such a licence is another issue. If I remember well once as I was analyzing GPL licences I saw that people of the FSF are often willing to support the development of new licenses, so maybe we should contact them and ask for support?
xvii. A criteria to determine if an organization is strongly transparent => if it publishes enough data so as to be able to setup a duplicate organization of itself. This is particularly useful in democratic settings, where a duplicability criteria would help in order to audit any process and its data.
xviii. One average person should be able to verify is some organization is TOP or not
xix. Public, why should anybody on this planet have any right on a TOP organization just because he is part of the “public”? Why not limit it to “its public”? (or participants)
As you can see I tried to shorten down the whole communication about the definition of TOP concentrating on Elements, Structure and Issues to be considered (if I missed any important thing please bring it to my attention). The definition we have (the one on the wiki) is still not satisfactory (even Serge did a great job in editing it) since some issues weren’t considered and are still not included in the definition. Maybe a good way to approach the definition would be to imagine todays politicians and political organizations (in a broad sense) and try to see if this definition excludes non-democratic and non-TOP entities. IMHO it doesn’t. Another issue which hasn’t been included are concrete steps which an organization or individual must make in order to be TOP.
Since only a little has been proposed about structure I think this should be our first focus, e.g. how should the definition look like and what should it cover?
If we create structure we can easily fill the elements of the definition in. One proposal is to create structure according to different aspects of TOP e.g. political, sociological, psychological, organizational, philosophical etc.), maybe this is a start. Or we can focus on the structure we have now (Introduction, Transparent, Open, Public, Conclusion, References). Any other proposals?Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+2
-
+1
That is a really awesome job you did. Congrats, Markus!
It took me a while to read all of lines. Though, I hope I will find some more time to work on this post, as long as it asks for rather serious approach. Good to see things moving on!
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
Thanks for the flowers. So what do you and the others think about defining structure first? I had somthing in mind like:
- Introduction
- Philosophical aspect
- Social aspect
- Political aspect
- Organizational aspect
- Informational aspect
- Psychological aspect
- Conclusion
- References
And then to define transparency, openess and publicity in every aspect and give a guide what to do (from every aspect) to be TOP. In this way we wouldn’t explain TOP by adding apples and oranges but have a nice formal framework.
Best regards
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1
-
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 09:46:54AM -0700, Markus Schatten wrote:
1. Introduction 2. Philosophical aspect 3. Social aspect 4. Political aspect 5. Organizational aspect 6. Informational aspect 7. Psychological aspect 8. Conclusion 9. References
That’s rather large, does it require all that?
What about:- Introduction
- Philosophy
- Definitions
- Politics
- Organisation
- Conclusion
And then to define transparency, openess and publicity in every aspect and give a guide what to do (from every aspect) to be TOP. In this way we wouldn’t explain TOP by adding apples and oranges but have a nice formal framework.
Cool by me.
But we need to advance with the definition. TOP => Transparent and Open to its Public, or Transparent and Open to its Participants.
(The “its” would be important to me. Much important than giving rights to every human on the planet.)
Data flow could then be a coin with two sides:- transparency: data goes from the system to its participants
- openness: data goes from participants to the system
- see everything
- act on everything
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
-1
Emmanuel this part “to it’s public” just calls for missinterpretation! I agre to what Lomax says. There is no way that organizations wolud be TOP if they would be transparent and open only to it’s public. Gale can tell you a pretty example of this. Some time ago he was in contact with members of the social party of croatia. According to your definition they would be TOP, since they have a private forum and everything is transparent and open to their members. And I can assure you that there is no party in croatia which is even near to TOP! So please just drop this idea because it will bring more problems than any good.
Best regards
MS
+1
-
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 04:11:36AM -0700, Markus Schatten wrote:
Emmanuel this part “to it’s public” just calls for missinterpretation!
As of now, it’s a proposition that ask clarifications. Just like TOP itself.
It’s rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much, but being open to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to people who might just want to break everything.
What is the qualification for modifications?
Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it functions can be modified by anybody else?
I’m merely building on serge’s proposal of “open”. Proposal I really like, but which would ask to qualify participants.
An example: wiki are very often consultable and modifiable by everyone, and I guess a generic FA with not many assets could be just the same, but what of other human associations which might control important elements. Do you give the power to anybody to control it? Why?
How do you qualify the “open” part of TOP?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
Dear Emmanuel
OK, I see openness in the sense of OpenSource is missunderstood here. Take the following example:
Someone programmes an OpenSource application. Any one can download it, change the source, send the suggestions to the author etc. What happens if someone “destructive” takes the code and puts some intentional bugs into it? Or even worse destroys the code and makes it non functional?
In both cases probably nothing will happend because the author controls what comes into his application and what not. If he has the adequate knowledge he’ll see the errors put inside.
But what happens if the author doesn’t want to add some good improvements send by participants to his application? Will this slow down development?
Probably not, because others will fork his application and create a new one with the proposed improvements, and eventually if they are better their application will be more used and better than the former.
Now take this in a political context and see what happens. Say Mirko starts a political project based on TOP. If someone wants to change the rules and do harm to the project Mirko won’t allow such behavior, e.g. he will filter the “harmfull actions” out of his project. But if Mirko is the “bad guy” and doesn’t allow for changes which will probably improve his project the others can fork his project and filter him out. Autopoiesis will do the rest, e.g. people (public) behavior will decide which project is the better which will eventually result with the commonly accepted best solution for this particular project, while the other solutions which may evolve eventually die.
So, I think OPEN in TOP should stand for fully OPEN to ALL public but with adequate mechanisms (e.g. filtering) which will allow such openness without harm. This also subsumes that all information ever made TOP must remain TOP – e.g. no information ever published as TOP should be ever deleted so eventual filtering and forks remain possible.
Best regards
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1
-
What is the meaning of “O” then?
The right to speak? Don’t we have that already? The right to secede? Isn’t a fork a secession?
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
What is the meaning of “O” then?
The right to speak?
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the idea if I posted to some other forum.
When I post there, they know that everybody knows what I said. So, you can not play dull in such situatio, when some compromising data is into process. This leads to demand of political base that leaders set their opinion and consequent actions towards things I am mentioning, of course if I am writing interesting things hard to be ignored.
So, they have freed informational channal of FMSDP. They can not manipulate with informations any more, or at least they have not monopoly for it any more. This is a great difference that shows idea of political relevant nformations vs politicaly non relevant info. politically relevant info are only info that matter and by setting TOP you enable there relevant info do their greatest job you can imagine.
Actually, it is revolution I am talking about. Thanks to openness and transparency of info processing.
Don’t we have that already? The right to secede? Isn’t a fork a secession?
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in common between OS and democracy.
ATB,
Galeecharp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:58:33PM -0700, illegale wrote:
echarp wrote: > What is the meaning of “O” then? > > The right to speak?
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just another voice and another person in the crowd.
For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the idea if I posted to some other forum.
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It’s a matter of politics.
The presence of a forum does not ensure anything but your right to speak!
If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No “huge difference” :(
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in common between OS and democracy.
The fact there are things in common does not imply that one is another.
Free Software is not democratic.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:58:33PM -0700, illegale wrote: > echarp wrote: > > What is the meaning of “O” then? > > > > The right to speak? > > I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and > if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. > First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise. Concretely. In any party you have fine and less fine people. Good and less good people. Smart and less smart people. Corrupted and not corrupted people. If some party was based only on bad and corrupted people, it would never had chance to be legitimated in political market however it is bad. So, bad guys need good ones for their own democratic legitimation. They need excuse that will haze bad aspects of their party.
For that they use media coverup and lack of info flow in general, where they can keep bad guys in ignorance, legitimating their bad actions.
So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is moving their position based on non-truths. And indeed. This process is not one hour job where everything changes. It has much deeper grounds, it is much more fundamental process to be ignored in any way. Though, this what I am talking is only from my personal experience. If we talk about studies, they show that people from forums do not respcet RL authorities much as regular people. In the same time these people are much more interested in hearing arguments.
This is what we could call changing psychological attributes of the people from forums, excatly due to reason where maybe non-TOP authorities wont hear you, but his power base will be eliminated if he keeps be ignorant. In this very time, these non-TOP authorites do change their thouths as long as socialisation process I am mentioning lasts for more than 10 years, having not so small influence into whole structure of society.
In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just another voice and another person in the crowd.
Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that, as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created first big step towards true democracy where the first is not nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he wants to prosper.
For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the idea if I posted to some other forum.
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It’s a matter of politics.
What do you mean by some participants? What I can notice, if you create politically relevant place (meaning people who have obvious power supremacy in such structures obviously read these forums making them politically relevant places), than any word if it makes sense can not be ignored any more. Not one. If it is ignored, here we get birth of alternative power structutes that will create new non-corrupted supremacy over existing power structures.
The presence of a forum does not ensure anything but your right to speak! Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great difference that does not exist right now.
If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No “huge difference” :(
This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third factor in decision making process.
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in common between OS and democracy.
The fact there are things in common does not imply that one is another.
Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy? ATB,
GaleFree Software is not democratic.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise.
COME ON!
Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum the more posts will be discarded by most people.
Signal over noise ratio.
So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
:-D
A century ago you would have had your own newspaper.
What you want is freedom of speech. You already have it. You also want political power, well, you need to attract political attention.
If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is moving their position based on non-truths.
This is politics. You have an idea, you write an open letter and publish in a newspaper, you hope someone notices it, maybe even you’ll have an answer. The media will pick the story, and ask more questions.
Ain’t that what you really want? To be heard?
Well, you can never have any insurance that you will be heard. A human being might even play like he’s listening, yet dismiss everything right away.
Then you play politics, try to set a fire under his seat and have more people involved. Politics.
You can not require that someone has an open mind.
In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just another voice and another person in the crowd.
Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that, as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created first big step towards true democracy where the first is not nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he wants to prosper.
What is it that you have created? Free speech?
Party leaders may or may not be touchable, it’s all matters of politics, nothing else.
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It’s a matter of politics.
What do you mean by some participants?
“Some” participants. Some people speaking or otherwise acting.
The presence of a forum does not ensure anything but your right to speak!
Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great difference that does not exist right now.
No.
You can not oblige someone to really listen to what you have to say. This is not technical, it’s simply human.
If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No “huge difference” :(
This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third factor in decision making process.
However the filters can be, a popular forum will “drown” most posts under their numbers.
The only way to have importance in a political context, is to gain political power. This is almost a tautology.
The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic processes…
(Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in common between OS and democracy.
The fact there are things in common does not imply that one is another.
Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
Democracy is a decision making system. Do you think Free Software also is? :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise.
COME ON!
Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum the more posts will be discarded by most people.
At IRC I explained the reason why I find that this is not true.
Signal over noise ratio.
So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
:-D
A century ago you would have had your own newspaper.
Right now I would have nothing against my own newspaper, too.
What you want is freedom of speech. You already have it. You also want political power, well, you need to attract political attention.
I want to optimize my political work. I want to go to the place where my engagment will matter, the place where the right people will hear and respond. For an example, I might talk about trust networks at any other place but this one. But I would barely get any respond. So, I am lucky this place is open to me, so I can discuss about this very thing and get response.
So, this means my engagement is optimised. This means less energy I have to involve to get desired results. This means more interested people who see work/result ratio is acceptable to them to try doing themselves. As long as this work/result ratio is being strongly impacted, I can notice political movement going out of it. Thing that can hardly be ignored.
If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is moving their position based on non-truths.
This is politics. You have an idea, you write an open letter and publish in a newspaper, you hope someone notices it, maybe even you’ll have an answer. The media will pick the story, and ask more questions.
Forum by TOP is much more relevant place. To be more precise. Forum by TOP is the place to solve the problem. The place where all interested sides are participating. The place where every dicision is deliberated by public itself, which is quiet revolutionary concept to idea of open letter in a newspaper. At least, I see it that way.
Ain’t that what you really want? To be heard?
No. I want to get response that will satisfy my intention. To be heard is probably first step in political process.
Well, you can never have any insurance that you will be heard. A human being might even play like he’s listening, yet dismiss everything right away.
I have no problem with that. I do understand that some people will never (for example extreme lunatics) be heard as long as there wont be interested people in what they are saying. Yet, I do believe in human kind in global. After all it is autopoietic system. I do believe that best thoughts and best decisions for human kind wont be ignored as long as it is impossible duo te reasons I mentioned in our IRC chat.
Then you play politics, try to set a fire under his seat and have more people involved. Politics.
That is what I find be crucial. The fact that we are talking about political reality and use of our work on that reality. We are not discussing some hypothesis. But politics.
You can not require that someone has an open mind.
I do not require it. But, if somebody has not open mind, we can say he is slow. And the one who is slow, if he is not holding oligopoly which is now the case, naturally wont lead others.
Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that, as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created first big step towards true democracy where the first is not nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he wants to prosper.
What is it that you have created? Free speech?
We removed media oligopoly over political context. In fact, this fact empowers free speech, which is the point of it. The point of free speech, as i can notice is not the idea that you can talk around, but the point that you can change the world by free expresion of your opinion. This optimisation of info flow, and bypass of media oligopoly over political context gives you strong boost.
Party leaders may or may not be touchable, it’s all matters of politics, nothing else.
Party leaders may be non touchable, but what is the point of such party that has no political base? And what does actually non touchable mean in that situation?
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It’s a matter of politics.
What do you mean by some participants?
“Some” participants. Some people speaking or otherwise acting.
OK. You have to become recognised in any work you do . The same thing is with politics. I have no problems with that. What has been problem was that recognition did not come from people/public, but from those at top. By realisation of TOP politics, that problem is solved.
Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great difference that does not exist right now.
No.
You can not oblige someone to really listen to what you have to say. This is not technical, it’s simply human.
He does not need to really listen to what I have to say. But, if he can not understand it and if he is a leader of sme fraction, than I can see the problem. Especially if there are more capable ones who could use their ability to really listen and not just capability, but the point of what I wanted to say. If there is whole base that is able to listen and see the point out of it, than leader, if he is not capable will be replaced by more capable. If none of them will be capable to listen, than it might be I am wrong, or that organisation is globally not capable and we can move on, not wasting energy.
This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third factor in decision making process.
However the filters can be, a popular forum will “drown” most posts under their numbers.
Its not however, because with filters you choose how many posts you want to see and of course under what criteria..
The only way to have importance in a political context, is to gain political power. This is almost a tautology.
OK. Yet, this power comes directly from the people/public. Not from the oligarchs, nor media manipulations. That is a good thing. I like it rather much.
The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic processes.
What do you mean by democratic process? Is SD2 choosing reprensetative democratic process?
The fact there are things in common does not imply that one is another.
Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
Democracy is a decision making system. Do you think Free Software also is? :)
OK. What I wanted to make point was that no other political system but democracy can accept basic thoughts of free software, which is freedom of information as base of the whole structure.
ATB,
Galeecharp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering. First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise.
COME ON!
Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum the more posts will be discarded by most people.
At
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-