[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Serge — 2006-09-25 19:51:15+0200

Hey,

First of all I agree with Gale that defining a system as TOP although slightly redundant, leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation that “open system” would, and remains concise enough to be acceptable.

Secondly, is it right to say that we agree that the aim of this group is for a TOP system allowing for such things as proxy voting, signal amplification over noise (filters), etc to be implemented freely and easily by any TOP organization wanting to?

If yes, why don’t we start try and get more developpers involved to build on leparlement, defining the specifics of the software, and testing it all the while through using leparlement as a platform for discussion/decision/vote??

Read more… / Lire plus…

Regards,

Serge

[top-politics] The state of parlement

echarp — 2006-09-29 01:44:44+0200

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:23:35AM -0000, Serge wrote:

> We also would need to have a proposal at hand for what the system > should be able of doing (Emmanuel do you have such a definition > document?). Then again it’s not like it needs to be all slick and > pretty since these documents are openstanding, it is more to provide a > reasonable amount of information and direction for people to catch up > on the idea and decide if they are interested and want to participate. > Once the starting elements are there, it’s all about publicity. Talk > on message boards forum, talk with political bloggers, email your > address book about it, whatever you can think of to spread the > word….

I don’t have much documents besides our discussions and parlement itself. Somehow, there is also rubyforge.

Basically, here are the already implemented features:

threaded forum
RSS feed for latest posts and most popular posts
login (optional password/email)
each post is also a forum
each post is also a mailing list
server replication (in real time by mail)
spam filtering (basic)
votes: -1, 0 or +1

Read more… / Lire plus…

avatars
personal display filter
posts can be positioned

Read more… / Lire plus…

In the future:

long posts shortened for display (tomorrow)
easy installation
electoral lists
PGP signatures
delegations
range votes
irc interaction
individual votes life span
web page updated in real time (chat)
voucher for anonymous pseudonym obtention

There are no roles, ranks, agendas, private settings, or obscured data. Everything is transparent, but for passwords (which are recorded as salted hashes and not replicated).

Poll results will be calculated according to a given electoral list. Which would thus act as a caucus of sorts. Anybody will be able to setup any number of electoral lists.

Anyone who has already posted to top-politics already has a parlement’s pseudo. It is the same as your mail’s name. Me for example, it’s “echarp”. Don’t hesitate to try it. You can, among other things, set up your avatar ;)

Come and have a talk on irc (you need to have java on your machine).

echarp – http://leparlement.org/irc

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Serge — 2006-09-19 15:41:32+0200

Hey,

Your reply seems to show that a definition of transparency _ open _ public as separate parts would remain necessary, however close their principle are could be useful. Using only the word open seems to have triggered the misunderstanding that it would be a “mindless” opening, while the transparency definition does state at this point that: “A transparent organization must ensure full, accurate, and timely disclosure of actions and information. Its actions and their justifications must remain intelligible and clear.”

Also I agree with your statement that delegable proxy can and should be used to reduce noise etc, as has been discussed and agreed in previous posts.

regards,
Serge

[top-politics] Re: The state of parlement

illegale — 2006-10-14 03:05:35+0200

This reminds me about compilating our recent intentions in order of getting back to them when the time comes.

ATB,
Gale

[top-politics] Re: The state of parlement

illegale — 2006-10-14 03:03:28+0200

[top-politics] Re: The state of parlement

echarp — 2006-10-11 15:17:02+0200

> I am copying your implemented features and planned additions on the > wiki so we may try to find a synthetic vision of the features a system > would need.

Cool, definitely very cool!

> Chiefly I’d like to add that this needs to be as easy as possible to > install and implement so as to raise the chance of organizations > adopting it.

Read more… / Lire plus…

There are currently two dependencies: ruby on rails and PostgreSQL. The only one bothering me is the DB. Anybody knows of a good ruby DB to remove that dependency? (this would do the same trick as derby in a J2EE project)

> best regards,

Thanks, take care

echarp

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Markus Schatten — 2006-10-06 16:14:43+0200

Dear Serge

On Tuesday 19 September 2006 05:33, Serge wrote:

> Dear Markus and members of the group, > > Most points seem valid, but I hope you won’t take offense if I point > out it’s not a very engaging read.

No offense at all ;-) It wasn’t very engaging to write also, but it has to be done.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> I do believe that the medium is > (half) the message, and that for TOP to have any kind of traction with > the public, its message must be absolutely as concise and clear as > possible.

I agree!

> > As you point out, and rightly so, my definition of TOP has elements > missing. Surely some elements would need to be added, and others > removed . However, expanding the level of detail beyond what consitutes > the core of TOP for this introductory statement would be a mistake for > two main reasons: > – While exceptions and numerous other things do need to be addressed, > bundling everything in the same document will only make it unpalatable > to anyone new to the discussion. > – While we can all agree on the fundamental meaning and goals of TOP > politics, we need to be cautious about trying to include details from > the start, as these details will probably be the points on which we > disagree rather than the essentials – and uselessly delay agreement on > these essential points.

I agree, this was an error of me to define everything in detail in only one document. But still, details have to be defined in special documents which should be referenced in the main one (so it should be understand that they are an integral part of it). Maybe we should take a law-writing approach e.g. use statements like “this issue is defined in a special document”, or “if in doubt consult special elaboration” etc.

> > Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the same > thing. I’ll add that transparency is similar too. In my understanding, > the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency), > openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It is > interesting to notice that controlling either information, system > infrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methods > of hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems. So how about > creating a dedicated reference document for each of the three founding > TOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and not > try to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies? >

This was allready been discused so I won’t engage a new discussion here, but let me just tell that I like the pretty definition of TOP you stated ;-)

Best regards

— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

illegale — 2006-09-27 22:29:58+0200

Serge wrote:

> Hey Gale, > > when you ask what we can do about that, I take “that” to mean “If yes, > why don’t we start try and get more developpers involved to build on > leparlement….”. The answer I would have is pretty straightforward. > > For starters we need an accessible and compelling statement of > intention (TOP definition).

OK. That is the job we are doing right now.

> We also would need to have a proposal at > hand for what the system should be able of doing (Emmanuel do you have > such a definition document?).

Read more… / Lire plus…

Indeed. People will need definition (is that right word?) of future system in order of making people interested.

> Then again it’s not like it needs to be > all slick and pretty since these documents are openstanding, it is more > to provide a reasonable amount of information and direction for people > to catch up on the idea and decide if they are interested and want to > participate. Once the starting elements are there, it’s all about > publicity.

So, you think we do not get too loud before first two things are realised in satisfying manner? I do agree with this idea, as long as my previous attempts of getting people interested withouth any “catch” is actually far from satisfying experience. I believe we do indeed need to have some “product” first.

> Talk on message boards forum, talk with political bloggers, > email your address book about it, whatever you can think of to spread > the word…. > > IMO it’s not exactly easy to do, but it’s really not that hard either, > all it takes is to actually get the ball rolling.

OK.
ATB,
Gale

> > Regards, > > Serge

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

echarp — 2006-09-26 10:35:57+0200

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Serge — 2006-09-26 05:23:35+0200

Hey Gale,

when you ask what we can do about that, I take “that” to mean “If yes, why don’t we start try and get more developpers involved to build on leparlement….”. The answer I would have is pretty straightforward.

For starters we need an accessible and compelling statement of intention (TOP definition). We also would need to have a proposal at hand for what the system should be able of doing (Emmanuel do you have such a definition document?). Then again it’s not like it needs to be all slick and pretty since these documents are openstanding, it is more to provide a reasonable amount of information and direction for people to catch up on the idea and decide if they are interested and want to participate. Once the starting elements are there, it’s all about publicity. Talk on message boards forum, talk with political bloggers, email your address book about it, whatever you can think of to spread the word….

IMO it’s not exactly easy to do, but it’s really not that hard either, all it takes is to actually get the ball rolling.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Regards,

Serge