[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal

Serge — 2006-09-12 13:53:04+0200

Hey,

Modified the wiki over the weekend, tried to keep the elements while adding some and making it more concise overall. Any comments or reaction?

Best regards,

Serge

[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: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Serge — 2006-09-19 05:33:56+0200

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. 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.

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.

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?

Read more… / Lire plus…

http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP

best regards,

Serge

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

AbdLomax — 2006-09-16 19:05:55+0200

At 06:00 PM 9/15/2006, echarp wrote: >It’s rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much,

actually, it’s huge….

> but being open >to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to people who might just >want to break everything.

(1) “Open” does not mean “open with absolutely no exception.” It means “substantially open, such that the label is not deceptive.”

Read more… / Lire plus…

(2) Open does not mean “unconditionally open to modifications by anyone.” There can be a process for approving modifications. Wikipedia is, frankly, a mess. Some articles are very, very good. But where there exists substantial controversy, wikipedia has essentially an “administrators and their delegates are God” position, which means that if there is an edit war, admins come in and resolve it. However they please. Right now there is an article that I generally follow which is quite damaged, because admin decided that links to web sites that contain advertising are taboo. However, eliminated under this policy are sites that provide resources to users for discussion and the dissemination of information, which are advertising-supported. In other words, they are like newspapers or cnn.com or the like. And Wikipedia routinely links from the home page articles that refer to cnn.com, for example, for news. So the policy was applied in quite an arbitrary manner. Why? Well, admins don’t like to spend a lot of time reviewing and deeply considering matters that are not of direct interest to them. They come in and make a snap judgement. Then they defend it, which is entirely another matter.

Wikipedia is great. But there are serious problems with “open to all,” if there are not similarly TOP processes for resolving disputes. I’m sure there is a way to get involved on Wikipedia and to participate. But I’m also sure that the institutional inertia is huge. If I see some small problem, I don’t want to have to rattle the cage of the owner…. I want to have a small easy process for dealing with it, something that does not involve personally joining and learning a whole new world, the world of Wikipedia administration.

The problem could be easily solved. If I knew where admin issue discussion and policy resolution was taking place (I could find it, I’m sure, but the whole point is that it should be easy), I could watch the traffic. I could pick out someone who, it seemed to me, had a good grasp of the issues, who might effectively represent what I have to say. Now, right now, I might be able to email or otherwise contact this person directly. So, informally, such a system already exists. It is just not easy. “Open and transparent” does imply “easy.”

It does not mean that automatically I could, myself, set Wikipedia policy or unilaterally determine article content. The person behind the edit war on the article in question was actually a person who had apparently posted a link to his web site, which was, allegedly — I didn’t verify this myself — an advertising-oriented site, i.e., was selling something. Primarily. A user removed the link for that reason (which may have been in error, but which was in line with Wikipedia policy. The user then retaliated by removing all links. And this went back and forth for quite some time until Wiki admin froze the article ~~- or at least the links section -~~, and then ultimately came back with a ban on all links with any advertising. Which shut out what has become, for me, the primary information source on the subject, because it has thousands of users, many of them experts. And, yes, every page has an ad on it somewhere…. the site sells advertising. Like yahoo, google, and most organizations that don’t have some angel behind them, or a strong support structure.

>What is the qualification for modifications?

Well consensus or the consensus of those delegated to make decisions on behalf of the members, by consensus. Or, at least, by majority approval. This should be on-going, i.e., a consensus at one time should not prevent a new and different consensus from forming later.

The way I’d generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the like, would routinely have the right to make edits. If they abuse the privilege, a moderator could restrict their right. And that restriction would be appealable. The exact process would depend on the size of the org and its nature, but the ultimate authority, if it is to be fully democratic, is with the assembly as a whole, which may routinely delegate that authority. With a DP process, there is always some kind of access to the top, through filters chosen by the member being restricted.

Non-DP organizations which would still satisfy the due process requirements to qualify as TOP would still have similar structures. (And do. Access to the U.S. Congress is through legislators, and access to the legislators is through staff chosen by the legislators. If you look at it closely, when it works, it is quite similar to DP, but with some serious gaps; the basic gap is that the filtering is not chosen at the bottom, but at the top. There will still be top-chosen filtering: a high-level proxy does not, in the DP systems we conceive, automatically have an obligation to receive communication from just anyone, but only from a defined set, those who have both chosen him and he has accepted. The freedom is in both directions.

Note that if this leaves a certain number of people out, because nobody will accept them, those people can agree to select a common proxy, and if enough of them do this, they would routinely have access to a higher level. But it’s not guaranteed: you can be so isolated in your opinions and so anti-social in your behavior that nobody wants to talk with you.

And that is exactly how it should be. In an FA/DP organization, nobody is punished by the organization. Not even criminals. But people may protect themselves, and the organization does not force any individual to associate with any other.

>Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it >functions can be modified by anybody else?

The confusion here is between “modification” of the rules and “proposing modification.”

The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules. Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance.

>I’m merely building on serge’s proposal of “open”. Proposal I really >like, but which would ask to qualify participants.

Organizations can have a qualification process, and if it does not unreasonably exclude anyone who would be legitimately concerned with the organization’s decisions, the organization could still be called “open.”

If the burden of qualification becomes greater than necessary, however, the label starts to be deceptive.

>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,

An FA may maintain an open wiki, but that does not mean that just anyone is allowed to modify it regardless. Our wikis are often subject to insertion of content by spammers, wherever there is a weak link. The SandBox, for example, in TikiWiki, may be edited by non-registered users. And so there are spambots which look for open SandBoxes and fill them with links. Wikis that do not require password access from validated members (i.e., email address has been confirmed by response to authentication mail) routinely get totally replaced by spam links. I learned the hard way. The entire wiki structure had been taken away, including all the admin access. Yes, there was a way to recover it, but it was … tedious.

Members who deliberately and persistently modify pages in a way that causes an implication of a position being taken by the FA, which has not, in fact, been taken, can easily see their access restricted. That is not punishment, it is necessary restriction.

Wikipedia can afford to be totally open — no validation is necessary — because they have a huge number of volunteers who can track down and report IP addresses of spammers and vandals. Most wikis, however, do require registration. Registration is easy and open, it does not prevent anyone from joining. Yet it also does allow the identification of the source of antisocial behavior, and an organization may decide to sanction such behavior.

“Open” does not mean that every individual can do just whatever he chooses, with the group resources. It means that every member is free to express his opinion, within the bounds of propriety, and that there is a process by which that opinion is filtered. I.e., it is considered, though not necessarily by the whole organization. Indeed, in a large organization, that becomes impossible. DP makes almost total openness possible, regardless of scale, but many other methods exist and are in use. They just don’t scale as well.

“Transparent” and “open” are thus not absolutes, they are relative. There is a children’s educational page in our newspaper, and it, perhaps unknowingly, had some cartoons in it, about democratic process, that were hilarious. The page makes games out of the subjects it examines, word puzzles, mazes, etc. So they had a cartoon on the right of petition. And it showed a maze, with a letter at one end and a mailbox on the other end. “Help Betty send a letter to the mayor,” was the caption.

A petition should not have to go through a maze! Yes, there must be a process, but it must not be unnecessarily difficult to negotiate. A process might exist, but if it is too difficult, we should not call the organization “transparent.”

>but what of other human associations which might control important >elements. Do you give the power to anybody to control it? Why?

This is, by the way, the reason why I think that we need to have large FA/DP organizations before the other major reforms will become possible. FA/DP organizations merely communicate and advise, they do not control. Once there is control, there is an attraction for parasites, and, typically, vulnerable nodes in the system. This concept of separating communication from control, I think, is relatively new, though it is really obvious from an information theory point of view. Control threatens people who perceive themselves a being likely to be harmed by it, which then distorts their participation in the communication process that should precede control.

People will still realize that if a position they do not like becomes a consensus position (i.e., is supported by the large majority of members), they will not be able to resist it, when the implementation comes (outside the organization), but there is quite a difference between being attached to an outcome and being intransigent in communication about it. Intransigence in communication simply leads the intrasigent to be excluded and neglected. It backfires. And high-level proxies will, I’m sure, understand this, and will attempt to insure that deliberation is complete and includes all relevant points of view, before the matter is considered settled by the organization.

This will happen, I expect, in non-FAs, and particularly in DP power control structures. But I’m interested in the process as a communications one. How can broad consensus be developed? It will not always be possible, but many times issues are clouded by intransigent positions that are unsustainable in the light of day. FA/DP organizations could, using wiki and wiki-like technology, develop documents which present arguments and analysis in a way that attempts to make them complete. Unresolved issues are stated as unresolved, but whatever evidence exists on any side would be made accessible. With such a document, anyone interested in the issue can find, in an organized way, the arguments and evidence on all sides.

With the Wikipedia article I mentioned above, there is a huge controversy outside the article, and it is reflected in the article. There is an attempt — this is Wikipedia, after all — to state the arguments, but the difficulty of this under Wikipedia rules is so great that what we get is a farrago of arguments “Pro” and “Con,” which vastly oversimplifies the situation, and arguments are made that are, quite simply, unsupportable. But they can be made on Wikipedia because some “expert” somewhere made the statement. The analysis necessary to tease apart legitimate arguments (on all sides) is not really allowed on Wikipedia. What it would take is an independent site dedicated to analysis, which will include POV pages or blocks, but in a context which makes clear what is behind all the arguments.

Okay, all this is being said in a vacuum, perhaps I should cite the article. It is on the “Atkins Nutritional Approach.” The article is generally considered inadequate by most of those interested in it, but it is extremely difficult, in the Wikipedia context, to improve it. The Pro/Con division of the article allows deceptive arguments (arguments that would not be made by a sophisticated and honest supporter of the position being argued) to stand. After all, these are, say, Con views that are being expressed out there. Never mind that they are thoroughly discredited and an embarrassment those who legitimately oppose the Atkins approach.

The Wikipedia process is inadequate to discover and present consensus information where there is entrenched controversy. Now, Wikipedians would answer that Wikipedia is not intended to do this, it is merely an encyclopedia. However, a standard encyclopedia would never include the controversial — and deceptive — material that one can find in the article I mentioned. Wikipedia is attempting to transcend ordinary encyclopedia, and, quite specifically, by converging on consensus articles where the vast bulk of the material in the article is solid. In order to do this, Wikipedia needs, among other things, some kind of editorial process that is not fully distributed, that includes input from the full public, but which also includes a decision making process that respects broad consensus and does not allow isolated opinion to pretend equality with it. This is where Wikipedia falls short.

However, as I find typical with FA/DP solutions, Wikipedia does not need to change to ameliorate the situation. An independent Wikipedia FA/DP organization could do it, and that organization would provide the analysis needed. As an independent site with pages on the subjects in Wikipedia, it could be linked from Wikipedia articles, quite legitimately (you can link to controversial sites; the site I’m mentioning would not actually be controversial, but people who dislike inconvenient information would charge that it is). And if participation in the Wikipedia admin process is necessary, a few members of this FA could participate.

That is, an independent FA/DP organization can, theoretically and practically, reform a non-FA, by organizing the members of the latter independently. FA/DP organizations of shareholders in corporations could radically reform the often corrupt management of corporations by management-controlled boards. It is not necessary to change the actual corporate control proces, which, typically, is already susceptible to control by the shareholders, collectively. If the shareholders are organized. Typically, they are not, except to the extent that a large block of shares is owned by one shareholder, and, I think, there are companies which do nothing but represent large institutional shareholders, holding and exercising their proxies, and these, through multiple clients, do represent a kind of shareholder organization. But small shareholders are left out of the equation, and there are so many of them, and they are so easily influenced by self-interested management,

>How do you qualify the “open” part of TOP?

I went a bit afield above, didn’t I? To qualify it requires a fairly deep discussion. It is fine unqualified, as long as the detailed description does not take way what any reasonable reader would imply from the mere use of the term in context. “Transparent, Open, Public.”

It is not a simple problem. Secret ballot, for example, is not transparent. If an initiative fails, we don’t know who, specifically, opposed it. It is one thing to use occasional secret ballot to validate and confirm that an open process is not being distorted by coercion, direct or subtle, but quite another thing to build a whole system on it. Indeed, the probability seems high to me that the last two Presidential elections in the U.S. were distorted by corruption and error in the election process, producing results opposite to the actual intention of a majority of voters. Secret ballot systems will always be vulnerable, to some degree, to this.

So we really should look at why secret ballot is being used. It’s obvious in some contexts, but far from obvious in others. Town Meeting towns have open, public voting on issues before the town. Coercion seems to be so rare that it might as well be nonexistent. There is a disconnect between Town Meeting results and results in secret ballot required by state law, but that disconnect, as far as I have seen, is sufficiently explained by Town Meeting consisting of informed voters, with secret ballot being broader and thus including many votes not benefiting from participation in deliberation.

I would suggest that an organization is not fully TOP unless all participants are known, or, if not known, then what they contribute does not control outcomes, it is merely information subject to verification or rejection by the organization’s process. Full TOP may not be realizable in power structures under present conditions. So I would think that one needs to develop a series of measures and report how an organization satisfies the criteria. 100% in all measures may not be possible outside of FAs. But organizations could substantially satisfy the criteria, and thus legitimately be called TOP.

I know, you’d like to have a clear criterion, such that if they do X, they are TOP, and if not, they are not. Unfortunately, such clear criteria are rare with measures that are truly useful.

But an organization which is only open “to its members,” if membership is restricted, is not purely “open.”

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

Markus Schatten — 2006-09-13 15:39:04+0200

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: ————————————-

Read more… / Lire plus…

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 easily

ii. 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

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

Mark Rosst — 2006-12-07 20:17:49+0100

[…] > >> >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-( > >mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. > > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably > > wouldn’t agree with you. > > >-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves > are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? > Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?

>mG:[…] the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence > since we are discussing equal righted humans…

-M: Which is why, with SD2-S, that everyone initially has equal voting power.
SD2-S is democratic-republicanism.

>mG:…with possibility to be anonymous. And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. > Neither are there laws, TOP or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: If AD uses the lemming algorithm, then the wolves can dupe the lemmings into a dinner.

> >>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best > >> handled by broad participation… > > >-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and > even encouraged by SD2-S.

>mG: -Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say. > AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a > delegate. But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be > options in a future TOP organization or country government. > This debate is not leading to anywhere.

-M: You said “SD2” – and yes, this is for selecting reps. But the system I am talking about is SD2-S, which has specialists for every issue,
so this functions much like your ‘delegates’ of AD. Again, I don’t see the comparison.

> >-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and > non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the revolutionary Ben Franklin.)

>mG: -Ben was wrong and he knew it.

-M: Franklin and Hamilton were the best anti-imperialists this world has seen.
Gandhi and Nehru were populistic wussies by comparison.

>mG: He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power. > There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither > accountable to each other. So they can go and elect Hitler.

-M: Again, the debate isn’t RD vs DD, its lemming-algorithm vs Markov-algorithms,
and in the above example it is the lemming-algorithm which selected Hitler.
So this is a point against you, and not me.

>mG: By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for > DD. Just BS theory frankly.

-M: You keep attacking L-RD. You are attacking the lemming algorithm which supports DD. I will let you continue to whup yourself.

> >>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a > > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history… > > >-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN > CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE. > >mG: -As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples > homes. Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?

-M: Ignorance and lack of vigilence. This is why intelligent and vigilent people must be selected to lead government.
This is why SD2-S has a peer-endorsement algorithm.

> >-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are > counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.

>mG: -It will be impossible within a true TOP organization to steal. > Your problem is how a rep can be fully TOP since he can’t be followed > and tapped 24/7. Concentate on solving that instead.

-M: I envision SD2-S to be TOP complient, so you aren’t making a comparison again.

> >>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently. > > >-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

>mG: -???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant > examples?

-M: The bottom 50% percent of income earners in the world own only 1% of the world.
This is a result of lemmingism.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Magnus — 2006-12-05 23:42:08+0100

>-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.
And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.

-OK, looks fine to me.

>> >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :-( >mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably > wouldn’t agree with you.

>-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?

Read more… / Lire plus…

-Another BS from you, the comparison with wolfs and sheep is nonsence since we are discussing equal righted humans with possibility to be anonymous.
And the bill of rights is not existent for the sheep. Neither are there laws, TOP or media to cover the dinner of the wolfes.

>>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best >> handled by broad participation…

>-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by SD2-S.

-Well, whats mainly encouraged in SD2 is voting for a rep. I would say. AD is doing it the other way around, with the possibility for a delegate.
But this is my last comparison with systems that actually can bothe be options in a future TOP organization or country government. This debate is not leading to anywhere.

>>mG:…and decisions taken by all.

>-M: WTF for?

-For the same reasons as above.

>-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the

revolutionary Ben Franklin.)

-Ben was wrong and he knew it. He just needed to justify his own and other reps. future power.
There is no logic in this since the lemmings in a RD are not neither accountable to each other.
So they can go and elect Hitler.
By contrast either you or Franklin has a similar example to show for DD.
Just BS theory frankly.

>>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…

>-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.

-As smart as saying that a burglar would meet no resistance in peoples homes.
Explain why anybody would accept stealing of his property?

>-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.

-It will be impossible within a true TOP organization to steal. Your problem is how a rep can be fully TOP since he can’t be followed and tapped 24/7.
Concentate on solving that instead.

>>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.

>-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

-???Empty words again about the history. Where are the relevant examples?

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

Mark Rosst — 2006-12-02 00:31:44+0100

> >-M: With SD2-S, people vote for both needed number of votes from the > active voting population and needed percentage of those voters in > favor of the issue. In the above case, this refers to percentage of actual voter support

>mG: -Sounds complicated. Does all issues have thresholds from the beginning > and how are they set?

-M: Have you seen my input field? —————————————————————————————————————--

Read more… / Lire plus…

Name ___________________________]

Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]

Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]

Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Deliberate [ ]

Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]

Decision threshold ⁶⁰%… (range 50%+1 – 70%, default 60%)

…of a required ²⁰%5 of qualified voters (range (0% – 40%)5, default 20%+5) —————————————————————————

-M: So the decision threshold defaults to 60%, but someone can choose 50%-70%.
And these thresholds are for all issues, not specific issues.

> >>mG: Show me one in AD and will comment on it. > > >-M: It may not be in AD, but would occur outside of AD if AD was > implimented. As I said to Emmanuel, SD2-S is about minimizing external complexity.

> >>mG: ~~Yes but SD2 is concentrating power, AD is spreading to as many as > > possible, quite a big difference.. > > >-M: Yes, but you are spreading the accountability way too thinly. :~~(

>mG: -This is claimed by you, please proove it. > I could argue that the people of Switzerland, or Socrates probably > wouldn’t agree with you.

-M: When two wolves and one sheep vote for whats for dinner, the wolves are not accountable to the sheep. Do you want to be the sheep? Likewise, do you want to be ruled by lemmings?

> >-M: SD2-S has real-time voting and a known power-line up. > Everyone at the top is expendable. They will know and serve the base of society -

>mG: But not all can be solved by expendable top. Some issues are best > handled by broad participation…

-M: “…broad participation…” can be useful, and this is allowed and even encouraged by SD2-S.

>mG:…and decisions taken by all.

-M: WTF for?

> >OR ELSE. By contrast, the lemmings are not accountable to each other.

>mG: -Another example of non prooven BS. Either you present some evidence > for it or remain silent.

-M: In a DD, the lemmings are not accountable to the other lemmings and non-lemmings, just as with the wolf/sheep example. (I got this from the revolutionary Ben Franklin.)

> >-M: The lemmings are duped into allowing corruption. > This is why an anti-corruption algorithm like SD2-S is needed.

>mG: -The people will never allow corruption if they see it and a > possibility to remove it, this is prooven many times in history…

-M: EVERY SINGLE FORM OF CORRUPTION, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN CORRUPTION ALLOWED BY THE PEOPLE.

>mG:…so you are coming with more BS.

-M: Its your BS. What is needed is a mechanism to find those that are counter-corruption because the people as a mass can’t do it.

>mG: Maybe your invented people of lemmmings acts differently.

-M: No differently than their lemminghood of history.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA