Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 28/06 17:48 +2 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
- 30/06 14:45 +1 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
- 29/06 17:03 +1 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
- 29/06 16:35 +1 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
- 29/06 09:39 +1 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
Latest posts
- 30/06 14:45 +1 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
- 29/06 17:03 +1 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
- 29/06 16:35 +1 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
- 29/06 09:39 +1 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
- 28/06 17:48 +2 Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
-
As far as I’m concerned, I’m going to apply all the concepts of transparency and open participation we talked about. I believe it is required in order to generate any sort of trust in any online political process.
It’s required, like air to breath. All “die bold” kind of machines are stupid black boxes open to all sorts of malversations. Let’s hope they die a horrible death, we may be able to help that :)
There are other lines I thing could be worth investigating, in France at least, I heard there are prizes designed to encourage transparency. This was the consequence of some NGO which were rather indelicate with the funds they had to manage. The worst one was a charity organism which funded cancer research, the president, rather famous because he actually personally was present on TV show to promote his worthy cause, stole incredible amounts of money for his own profit.
I think the prize was called “crystal prize” or something like that. Ever heard about that?
They probably have criteria to determine how transparent an organisation is. Worth looking at.
I also remember another group of online people, Free Software guys, who launched an initiative to define how “open” a software and its development and community are. Maybe worth looking at?
So guys, what are actually the elements required to define if a group follow the top principles or not?
- meeting minutes?
- participants?
- processes?
- budgets?
- goals?
I also have troubles with the definition of what ought to be public and what can remain private.
How much efforts are required to be actively transparent or to simply allow a kind of passive transparency. Those are two concepts I also would like to explore.
echarp – http://leparlement.org v0.6 (you can now vote!)
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:23:47AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > Suggestion: > > 1. Support for the creation of the global public trust network among > individuals who share progressive political ideas based on IT. > > Why? > > Many concepts we are discussing over are not established at all, not > even among those who are actually keen for this. The public overall we > are oriented to in this very time can be numbered in thousands in my > best expectations which is politically irrelevant number. > > Those initiatives that share sometimes very simmilar thoughts could > penetrate to wider public pretty easy if going TOGETHER armed with > shared knowledge we all gain during our voyages if we fine enough will > to articulate exact concepts, terms, visions and other ideas that are > the base for growth of any political organisation. > > In this very moment, we actually do not have articualted concepts nor > leadership that enables birth of relevant political organisation > (powerfull ones). Though, together we can do it much faster and much > better. > > So, as long as this part is not something new, meaning there are many > of organsiations wanting to do the same thing, I propose a little > distinction between the way of realisation of this potential group > vision. > > It is in SUPPORT of the trully democratic initiatives (having TOP > intregrated in their process as grant for their political orientation) > and support for their global integration, meaning our mission be the > support, not leadership, as long as this is the part that lacks in this > very moment. > > Please, do not comment this part untill we see what are the other > options we have, what are the visions and missions we can work on?
+1
-
Maybe, we can begin small by determining our group’s definitions (which may differ in some ways from our individual definitions) of what is meant by democracy or TOP. And we can also discuss the pros and cons of the delegated vote.
So which topic shall we discuss first?
In the event of a tie in the votes and since there are four of us, Gale being the leader shall have the casting vote. What we decide will still be open to future review and voting, if there is a need for it or when there is a better argument in the future or when our group increases in size. We shall discuss and decide on the necessary procedures when the time comes.
Best Regards
Eric Lim
echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote: As far as I’m concerned, I’m going to apply all the concepts of transparency and open participation we talked about. I believe it is required in order to generate any sort of trust in any online political process.
It’s required, like air to breath. All “die bold” kind of machines are stupid black boxes open to all sorts of malversations. Let’s hope they die a horrible death, we may be able to help that :)
There are other lines I thing could be worth investigating, in France at least, I heard there are prizes designed to encourage transparency. This was the consequence of some NGO which were rather indelicate with the funds they had to manage. The worst one was a charity organism which funded cancer research, the president, rather famous because he actually personally was present on TV show to promote his worthy cause, stole incredible amounts of money for his own profit.
I think the prize was called “crystal prize” or something like that. Ever heard about that?
They probably have criteria to determine how transparent an organisation is. Worth looking at.
I also remember another group of online people, Free Software guys, who launched an initiative to define how “open” a software and its development and community are. Maybe worth looking at?
So guys, what are actually the elements required to define if a group follow the top principles or not?
- meeting minutes?
- participants?
- processes?
- budgets?
- goals?
I also have troubles with the definition of what ought to be public and what can remain private.
How much efforts are required to be actively transparent or to simply allow a kind of passive transparency. Those are two concepts I also would like to explore.
echarp – http://leparlement.org v0.6 (you can now vote!)
+2
-
+1
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:48:13AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> Maybe, we can begin small by determining our group’s definitions (which may > differ in some ways from our individual definitions) of what is meant by > democracy or TOP.
Yes, this is something important.
> And we can also discuss the pros and cons of the delegated vote.
The point of view being direct against indirect participation?
> So which topic shall we discuss first?
Both? :)
> In the event of a tie in the votes and since there are four of us, Gale being > the leader shall have the casting vote. What we decide will still be open to > future review and voting, if there is a need for it or when there is a better > argument in the future or when our group increases in size. We shall discuss > and decide on the necessary procedures when the time comes.
The voting process could be continuous. That means that any body accepted in the electoral list will have his votes counted, but also that any vote can be changed any time.
What do you think of the -1/0/+1 process to show if you accept or reject something?
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
+1
[Eric]:
Okay, so we have three topics for discussion:
1 What does democracy mean to you?;
2 What does TOP mean to you?; or
3 What are the pros and cons of the delegated vote?
I vote for Topic 2. As there are a total of 4 votes, the first topic that gets 3 or more votes shall be the topic selected for discussion. If none gets voted, then we shall have Round 2 of voting and vote on the first 2 topics that get the highest number of votes. If there are 2 topics with the same number of votes at the 2nd place, then Gale shall have the casting vote.
[echarp]:
“The voting process could be continuous. That means that any body
accepted in the electoral list will have his votes counted, but also that any vote can be changed any time." [Eric]: The continuous vote may not be appropriate for the voting of topics for discussion unless we want to change the discussion topic half-way when it loses the majority support. The pros and cons of the continuous vote for the election of a public officer could be another topic for discussion at some other time. [echarp]: “What do you think of the -1/0/+1 process to show if you accept or reject something?”
[Eric]: What do I do when there are two major points in a message where I agree with one and not the other? Best Regards Eric Lim
+1
-
Dear Emmanuel and Eric.
One thing Id really like to suggest, as long as I find it be crucial part is that this topic does not loose its clear focus. If this focus is not clear to other members, please accept my excuse and I will try to articulate it more precisely.
So, let me try do it again.
There are 4 of us willing to join forces as long as we see that we might be more effective in our work if we suceed. This is the base of this group, yet this group in order to survive has to have common goal accepted by every single one of us. If there is no such goal, then there is no space for group consolidation as long as we all go in different directions.
In order to see is there space for creation of common goal, clear enough not to be missinterpreted, I started this topic. Please, keep this topic oriented to only this issue, to keep clear focus on this part and enable transparent process.
ATB;
Gale
+1
-
Dear group members
I’m sorry you had to wait for me to answer to this issue which is pretty important for the future. As I see it a good step would be to generate simple documents to state our common vision and missions, formulate and consolidate common goals and standpoints. The wiki system seems to be a good playground for such documents. From my perspective I think it would be nice to have a common place where our ideas, concepts, vision, missions etc. are documented so we haven’t to explain issues over and over again every time a new member or participant comes along.
Another big issue, from my perspective is development of strategy and it’s implementation. If we have a common vision and missions defined, strategy is the next logical step. Strategy is “just” a system of goals and we should strugle to achive them one after another. From my perspective two of the most important goals in our strategy should be promotion of the concepts we develope(d) and of course the implementation of an information system to support it.Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1
-
-
-
