[top-politics] Re: What can 4 of us actually do?

Markus Schatten — 2006-06-30 14:45:07+0200

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

[top-politics] Re: What can 4 of us actually do?

illegale — 2006-06-29 17:03:17+0200

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.

[top-politics] Re: What can 4 of us actually do?

lpc1998 — 2006-06-29 16:35:37+0200

+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

[top-politics] Re: What can 4 of us actually do?

echarp — 2006-06-29 09:39:15+0200

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.