http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_24/index.rss [top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization 2006-09-29 21:20:42+0200 http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_32/index.rss http://leparlement.org/Re_Definition_of_TOP_Systematization_32/index.rss Mark Rosst <p><p>illegale wrote:<br/></p> <p>&gt; Lomax wrote: &gt; &gt; echarp wrote:</p> <p>[&#8230;] &gt; &gt; The way I&#8217;d generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after &gt; &gt; a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the &gt; &gt; like, would routinely have the right to make edits. If they abuse the &gt; &gt; privilege, a moderator could restrict their right. And that &gt; &gt; restriction would be appealable. The exact process would depend on &gt; &gt; the size of the org and its nature, but the ultimate authority, if it &gt; &gt; is to be fully democratic, is with the assembly as a whole, which may &gt; &gt; routinely delegate that authority.</p> <p><a class="readMore" href="#" onclick="Element.hide(this); Element.removeClassName(this.parentNode.nextSibling, 'tooLarge'); return false;">Read more&#8230; / Lire plus&#8230;</a> <div class="tooLarge"></p> <p>&gt;G: <span class="caps">IMO</span>, this is basic difference between Lomax and Marks aproach is that &gt; Lomax is letting free process, ebabling autopoietic, selforganasing &gt; basic unit uf humankind, human has possiblity to learn and grow, &gt; participate and do a rebalance of political power towards &gt; decentralisation which is good and possible in this very moment also.</p> <p>-M: SD2-S is amplifying of these free, autopoietic, self-organizing processes.<br/> SD2-S doesn&#8217;t add anything that is contrived or arbitrary.</p> <p>&gt;G: In the other hand SD2 is routine that might go wrong,&#8230;</p> <p>-M: How?</p> <p>&gt;G:&#8230;as long as nobody tested,&#8230;</p> <p>-M: The only way for it to be accepted is for it to be tested - therefore it will be tested by the time that it has large scale applications.</p> <p>&gt;G:&#8230;it can be hijacked and effort of individuals that base their work on SD2 can be banalised pretty heavily. So, my opinion is that we can not go this way in this very moment, at least we can not put bet on precisely SD2 as long as by letting basic principles of such free system combined with open source get alive, we can not go wrong. So, SD2 for testing and some not so important issues, yes. Basing the process, no.</p> <p>-M: If your idea of a &#8216;free system&#8217; is a mere communication network like Lomax&#8217;s FAs, then you have bodies with no decision making capability. You have nothing.</p> <p>&gt;G: <span class="caps">BTW</span>, there is an example for SD2 I could use right now. In open system &gt; such as forum is in <span class="caps">TOP</span> communication with some <span class="caps">TOP</span> organisation, &gt; concept of public could be measured on such way, in other words such &gt; <span class="caps">TOP</span> organisation could put SD2 reprensetative to be included in exact &gt; decision making process. In that way we can optimise such process and &gt; develop others.</p> <p>-M: OK. :-)</p> <p>shanti<br/> Mark, Seattle WA <span class="caps">USA</span></p> </div></p>