[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

illegale — 2006-12-04 19:34:32+0100

echarp wrote:

> Spot on, it is another forum!!! And a mailing list. And in time a chat
> room.
>
> It aims to be a combination of all linear methods, what I call a
> “linear” method being a communication where you can add content but not
> remove any. A Usenet forum is such a thing, same with a newspaper, a
> blog or a meeting. A wiki is not (or it will need serious thinking to
> make it so), but there could be links to such a beast :)

OK.

> > So the interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we
> > should concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again
> > it’s the eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t
> > interest users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions
> > and criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.
>
> Definitely!
>
> Being a mailing list, a parlement instance could just duplicate any
> number of other mailing lists there are on the web. Trouble is that any
> answer or vote made directly on parlement will not be forwarded to the
> original mailing list (this is what is done with top-politics, see
> http://leparlement.org/top-politics *).

Read more… / Lire plus…

OK.

> > However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So
> > the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more
> > programmers, isn’t it?
>
> There are PGP signatures to work on, chat and irc connections, ordering
> by activity instead of creation, image uploading in a post (one can
> already send an image or any other file in a mail), automatic database
> creation when an instance is set up, P2P cluster automatic creation,
> speed optimisations, design, colors…

OK.
>
> And lots and lots of testing!

OK.

So, what do these OKs have with request for ELs? What I need to notice
is that here comes Markus who whishes to start the whole process on
with new aproach. As long as there is not product I need and as long as
I do not notice your will to work harder on that before there is
hudreds of users of leparelemnt, I have to back up Markus’s wish in
order of having more chance to get a product I need. Why is that
happening? What should I do in order of optimising the work of this
group?

ATB;

Gale

ATB,

Gale

> * there can’t be answers because it would require the parlement’s
> participants to also exist on the google group
>
> echarp – http://leparlement.org

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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: Parlement Version 0.9

illegale — 2006-12-04 18:18:15+0100

Serge wrote:

> Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To
> my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum. So the
> interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we should
> concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again it’s the
> eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t interest
> users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions and
> criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.

In this very time I can push parlement to that new gravity center in
Croatian political cyberspace. Yet, for this I need a product. There is
several people who might easily recognise the usefullnes of this
transparent, open media based on common equality.

Yet, I need a product as I said.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> I would suggest, in regards to content, that if feeds could be inserted
> in the forum coming from relevant city councils, parliaments,
> organizations, on their debates and upcoming legislation under
> deliberation, it could become a whole lot more relevant to a lot of
> people. Especially if online collaboration, wiki-like could be
> integrated not only for proposals but for posted documents/attachments.
> A xwiki meets parlement type of thing (how about no sleep for two years
> Emmanuel?). Add to this a robust method of voting, and the whole thing
> should already be well under way.

These users wont come up to parlement and say, hey lets develop it.
They are consumers, they want use. At least I see this that way. It
might be I am wrong, of course.

> However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So
> the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more
> programmers, isn’t it?

Regular thing is that people get interested in software in the moment
they find use of it, so they become attracted in developing it further
Maybe this software is usefull for these people and if that is true,
software developers will come indeed.

Yet, the example of Markus is that he is rather starting new project
based on software base he prefers, than working on a concept he would
need to adopt first. And that is what regularly happens before turning
point (wideer affirmation of software). I am afraid, it is up to
software originator to create basic product and after that the rest is
history :-)

ATB,

Gale
>
> Serge

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

echarp — 2006-11-24 19:59:23+0100

> Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To
> my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum.

Spot on, it is another forum!!! And a mailing list. And in time a chat
room.

It aims to be a combination of all linear methods, what I call a
“linear” method being a communication where you can add content but not
remove any. A Usenet forum is such a thing, same with a newspaper, a
blog or a meeting. A wiki is not (or it will need serious thinking to
make it so), but there could be links to such a beast :)

Read more… / Lire plus…

> So the interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we
> should concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again
> it’s the eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t
> interest users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions
> and criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.

Definitely!

Being a mailing list, a parlement instance could just duplicate any
number of other mailing lists there are on the web. Trouble is that any
answer or vote made directly on parlement will not be forwarded to the
original mailing list (this is what is done with top-politics, see
http://leparlement.org/top-politics *).

> However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So
> the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more
> programmers, isn’t it?

There are PGP signatures to work on, chat and irc connections, ordering
by activity instead of creation, image uploading in a post (one can
already send an image or any other file in a mail), automatic database
creation when an instance is set up, P2P cluster automatic creation,
speed optimisations, design, colors…

And lots and lots of testing!

there can’t be answers because it would require the parlement’s
participants to also exist on the google group

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Serge — 2006-11-24 19:37:22+0100

Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To
my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum. So the
interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we should
concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again it’s the
eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t interest
users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions and
criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.

I would suggest, in regards to content, that if feeds could be inserted
in the forum coming from relevant city councils, parliaments,
organizations, on their debates and upcoming legislation under
deliberation, it could become a whole lot more relevant to a lot of
people. Especially if online collaboration, wiki-like could be
integrated not only for proposals but for posted documents/attachments.
A xwiki meets parlement type of thing (how about no sleep for two years
Emmanuel?). Add to this a robust method of voting, and the whole thing
should already be well under way.

However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So
the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more
programmers, isn’t it?

Serge

Read more… / Lire plus…

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

echarp — 2006-11-24 19:32:41+0100

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 12:12:14PM -0000, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:

> echarp wrote:
> > A big feature already complete is the P2P part: a parlement instance can
> > work as a node in a cluster of parlements!
> >
> > That makes it a distributed blog accessible by mail and democratically
> > moderated by its users.
> >
> >
> > Electoral lists will probably not be technically useful before a
> > critical mass.
>
> Mailing lists and similar stuff are from mine point of view only
> fundamentals, not a product. “Democratically” moderated is something we
> already have at many other software solutions.
> I want to see new product that has obvious use and quality superiority
> if I want to promote it around. In this moment parlement has good
> fundaments and has service that already exists. In this moment
> parlement is offering nothing revolutionary. Sorry.

A decentralized and democratically moderated forum is not new? Can you
point me to any such thing? One where everybody can post and where each
post is also a forum and a mailing list?

You want a bullet point in a marketing sheet, I’d rather have things
that will be directly useful and you can still sell the fact that will
be implemented that bullet point and more.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Parlement is a project, a free software one, its potential is also
important.

> > Look at “digg”, which parlement is close to in many ways, do you think
> > you would need/use EL if there were less than 10 votes on each item?
>
> What I can see is that you want users before you have a product.

Do you think that what I have done is worse zero? :(

> That is not a way things work. OK. Maybe some other users see use of
> decentralized software (yet, news groups work that way, no?) or
> “democratic” voting (yet, slashdot and whole bunch of karmic software
> works that way, no?) be a product. If that is so, than I will have to
> face the fact that I did not see this “revolution” due to some of my
> wrong presumptions. If that is not so, than you will have to develop
> product first.

I would love you to test and use parlement right now. It is already
usable, and in some ways it offers more than SlashDot and Usenet
combined. Even more than kuro5hin and digg.

EL are not a feature people will use before a critical mass. To sell
parlement on that non-feature will bring a risk of discontentment.

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-11-24 18:20:04+0100

Hmh. What do others think about it? It might be I am actually lonely
runner in understanding of potential of parlement.

ATB,

Gale

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-11-24 13:12:14+0100

echarp wrote:

> A big feature already complete is the P2P part: a parlement instance can
> work as a node in a cluster of parlements!
>
> That makes it a distributed blog accessible by mail and democratically
> moderated by its users.
>
>
> Electoral lists will probably not be technically useful before a
> critical mass.

Mailing lists and similar stuff are from mine point of view only
fundamentals, not a product. “Democratically” moderated is something we
already have at many other software solutions.

I want to see new product that has obvious use and quality superiority
if I want to promote it around. In this moment parlement has good
fundaments and has service that already exists. In this moment
parlement is offering nothing revolutionary. Sorry.

> Look at “digg”, which parlement is close to in many ways, do you think
> you would need/use EL if there were less than 10 votes on each item?

Read more… / Lire plus…

What I can see is that you want users before you have a product. That
is not a way things work. OK. Maybe some other users see use of
decentralized software (yet, news groups work that way, no?) or
“democratic” voting (yet, slashdot and whole bunch of karmic software
works that way, no?) be a product. If that is so, than I will have to
face the fact that I did not see this “revolution” due to some of my
wrong presumptions. If that is not so, than you will have to develop
product first.

ATB,

Gale

> EL and P2P signatures are a great way to secure a distributed democracy,
> but as of now I would rather test and use what already exists. And only
> work on what will be directly useful.
>
> > Now. What I am looking for right now? In this very moment, there is
> > site called www.pollitika.com where blogger Mrak gathered more than 20
> > other bloggers who write about Croatian politics. Yet, some of these
> > members see an urge to adopt not just blogs, but other communication
> > tools (forum the most important, wiki, etc.) in order of creating one
> > strong attractor of politically constructive people.
> >
> > I would like them to offer such tool that can optimize communication
> > flow better than todays software solutions and I believe that EL would
> > be just that. All in all, there is an existing gravity that we might
> > eventually use for further growth and if things would work fine, we
> > might even succeed.
>
> EL won’t really be useful to them unless they have hundreds of votes on
> their posts and comments.
>
> BTW, I’m willing to administrate any parlement instance they would use.
> And/or they can directly use http://leparlement.org, they just need to
> start a thread with a given subject and there, they will have a forum.
>
> Their forum url will look like http://leparlement.org/subject
>
> I can also create it in another part of the site, so that it is not
> accessible from the main page (like http://leparlement.org/fr or
> http://echarp.org/blog).
>
> > As long as this new approach of heterarchical filtering is up to my
> > knowledge not existing in this very moment, there might be some
> > difficulties that we are not aware of. Sooner we start working on that,
> > sooner we will be in position to solve bugs ad offer effective
> > software.
>
> As far as I know, a distributed forum accessible by mail and
> democratically moderated does not exist yet. Not only that, but that
> forum is due to implement two features (EL and PGP signatures) that will
> make it a reliable democratic system, and delegations to scale to any
> number of participants. Isn’t that enough?
>
> echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

echarp — 2006-11-22 21:23:00+0100

First, we do agree on the advantages of electoral lists. I consider
them necessary in a democracy, just as you do.

But, I would rather start using parlement with what already exists. I
hope it is already a good starting point.

Of course I want to add other things, electoral lists, PGP signatures,
delegations, are just the most important, and complex.

> How I understand parlement is that in this very time it does not offer
> some attractive new thing. It has good fundamental base that allows
> heterarchies and disables power of admin which is essential. Yet, this
> part is not product for wider circle of consumers.

Read more… / Lire plus…

A big feature already complete is the P2P part: a parlement instance can
work as a node in a cluster of parlements!

That makes it a distributed blog accessible by mail and democratically
moderated by its users.

Electoral lists will probably not be technically useful before a
critical mass.

Look at “digg”, which parlement is close to in many ways, do you think
you would need/use EL if there were less than 10 votes on each item?

EL and P2P signatures are a great way to secure a distributed democracy,
but as of now I would rather test and use what already exists. And only
work on what will be directly useful.

> Now. What I am looking for right now? In this very moment, there is
> site called www.pollitika.com where blogger Mrak gathered more than 20
> other bloggers who write about Croatian politics. Yet, some of these
> members see an urge to adopt not just blogs, but other communication
> tools (forum the most important, wiki, etc.) in order of creating one
> strong attractor of politically constructive people.
>
> I would like them to offer such tool that can optimize communication
> flow better than todays software solutions and I believe that EL would
> be just that. All in all, there is an existing gravity that we might
> eventually use for further growth and if things would work fine, we
> might even succeed.

EL won’t really be useful to them unless they have hundreds of votes on
their posts and comments.

BTW, I’m willing to administrate any parlement instance they would use.
And/or they can directly use http://leparlement.org, they just need to
start a thread with a given subject and there, they will have a forum.

Their forum url will look like http://leparlement.org/subject

I can also create it in another part of the site, so that it is not
accessible from the main page (like http://leparlement.org/fr or
http://echarp.org/blog).

> As long as this new approach of heterarchical filtering is up to my
> knowledge not existing in this very moment, there might be some
> difficulties that we are not aware of. Sooner we start working on that,
> sooner we will be in position to solve bugs ad offer effective
> software.

As far as I know, a distributed forum accessible by mail and
democratically moderated does not exist yet. Not only that, but that
forum is due to implement two features (EL and PGP signatures) that will
make it a reliable democratic system, and delegations to scale to any
number of participants. Isn’t that enough?

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-11-22 20:14:34+0100

EL and FA have something in common indeed :-)

ATB,

Gale

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-11-22 20:13:53+0100

There are merely consumers who want decent debate and “researchers” who
are willing to check someones credibility, test it, promote it. So, if
consumer wants to see/test reputation, it is only one/two hits he has
to do. Of course, lazy ones will be lazy ones, yet this laziness is
measured in months of common sense delay, which is not long time in
political process.

Anyway, I have nothing against majority-style ranking, see that as
common most easily recognized tech for evaluating common opinion, so it
wont harm anything in process of choosing proxies, I believe.

ATB,

Gale