[top-politics] TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

illegale — 2006-12-10 23:28:25+0100

MG wrote:

> >> More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.
>
> >Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to
> make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in
> politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are
> politically active right now to empower them with this certification.
> So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have
> different products too.
>
> -Well, there is no need to certify all members expressing their will in
> an AD-system.
> For delegates or more powerful adminstrators there is indeed.
> But all working inside an AD-organization on a higher level that zero
> (citizen) should be obliged to follow TOP-principles.
> The only difference I see is that you rely more on todays politicians
> and organizations and I more on a competing organization, aimed to take
> ower in the future.
> So, sure, there can be different options in this, too.

Indeed. And it should be, actually. We are far from the moment when we
sould reach concensus based on experience and wider knowledge.

> >Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment
>
> -Yes!
> Shall we now form a formal, international organization TOP, to which
> all certified organizations can connect and be connected as long as
> they fulfill TOP as upheld and defined by this international
> organzation?

Read more… / Lire plus…

Maybe we should reach Stallman to help us out about creating such
organisation. The problem I see in this very moment (in Tiaktiv) is the
statute that has too many gaps not to be easily overtaken by the people
that might be far from TOP. As long as this problem is not solved, I am
not willing to link organisation directly to any decision we might find
correct.

> Can Tiaktiv be this international org?

We in Tiaktiv are oriented towards creating structure for TOP politics.
In that manner it might be good think. Yet, Tiaktiv as formal
organisation is rather weak and I do not trust to its form. So, I hope
we will get into contact to Stallman (he developed GNU licence) to see
how could we svolve our issue in the best manner we could.

BTW. In this very time I believe we do not need any organisation for
development of any TOP definition. For an example, Tiaktiv might
support one definition AD develops, or vice versa. I believe this way
might solve the potential problem.

ATB,

Gale

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Magnus — 2006-12-05 23:52:57+0100

>> More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.

>Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to
make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in
politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are
politically active right now to empower them with this certification.
So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have
different products too.

-Well, there is no need to certify all members expressing their will in
an AD-system.

For delegates or more powerful adminstrators there is indeed.
But all working inside an AD-organization on a higher level that zero
(citizen) should be obliged to follow TOP-principles.
The only difference I see is that you rely more on todays politicians
and organizations and I more on a competing organization, aimed to take
ower in the future.

So, sure, there can be different options in this, too.

>Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment

Read more… / Lire plus…

-Yes!
Shall we now form a formal, international organization TOP, to which
all certified organizations can connect and be connected as long as
they fulfill TOP as upheld and defined by this international
organzation?

Can Tiaktiv be this international org?

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

illegale — 2006-12-04 19:40:50+0100

Thx Serge.

I did not now for him.

ATB,

Gale

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

illegale — 2006-12-04 19:39:54+0100

MG wrote:

> >AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.
>
> -But since all citizens are allowed to get membership and to decide in
> all issues, this would meann to TOP-crtifty all citizens
> participating..
> More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.

Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to
make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in
politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are
politically active right now to empower them with this certification.
So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have
different products too.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become
> certificator?
>
> – :-) Why not? Or if we form a more self standing organization, called
> TOP.
> The idea of that is that all TOP certified all over the world could
> participate and together withhold (keep) the values and basic ideas of
> TOP.

Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment
:-)
ATB,

Gale

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Magnus — 2006-11-27 12:56:14+0100

>AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.

-But since all citizens are allowed to get membership and to decide in
all issues, this would meann to TOP-crtifty all citizens
participating..

More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.

>Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become
certificator?

:-) Why not? Or if we form a more self standing organization, called
TOP.

The idea of that is that all TOP certified all over the world could
participate and together withhold (keep) the values and basic ideas of
TOP.

Read more… / Lire plus…

[top-politics] collective action management system / inroads

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 22:52:35+0100

>S: […]but is the following pledge what you had in mind?
> http://www.vpsystems.net/Nevada/?page_id=50
> by the way, from what I could gather, I think this guy has lost to a
> republican

-M: *R*epublican not *r*epublican.
example: I am a republican but not a Republican.

Proper noun vs. common noun.

>S: Regards, Serge

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: I haven’t promoted this before,
but I do like the idea of individual politicians using SD2-S.

In American politics(or other non-parlimentary systems),
this would probably be quite useful for the Speaker of the state or
federal house or senate.
Citizens Forum?
Maybe it could be a parallel to City Council, State Legislature, or
Federal Legislature.

People , from the beginning I have promoted SD2/SD2-S as not a
replacement of current political processes, but as a collective
action management system that can be used for political purposes among
many other purposes.

And the political purposes are meant to suppliment and parallel current
constitutional processes without the need of change of these.

Inroads are:

SD2 for political parties
SD2-S for municipal government and above,
via sympathetic elected politicians
SD2-S for large scale administration,
via sympathetic appointed politicians

shanti

Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Serge — 2006-11-25 14:20:27+0100

Hey Gale,

Emmanuel knew about this already, so maybe you do too, but is the
following pledge what you had in mind?

http://www.vpsystems.net/Nevada/?page_id=50

by the way, from what I could gather, I think this guy has lost to a
republican.

Regards,

Serge

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-11-24 18:08:36+0100

Serge wrote:

> The birth of political ISO certification. Talk about what a kick in the
> anthill that would be…
>
> Joke aside, I agree that a certification makes sense for organizations.
> And I must say I find the idea of certifying individuals quite
> incongruous.

Hmh. I am thinking about manifest, not certification. Thing that
explains why I as a politician accept TOP in my work.

> Most if not all certifications of individuals today are
> done following some kind of training and standardized form of exam or
> assessment (thinking of doctors, lawyers, techniciancs, assermented
> public officers, etc).

Read more… / Lire plus…

In some time, it makes sense to make trainings for TOP politicians, as
long as todays politician schools are based on regular politics where
use of Internet is practically not existent. Doctors who teach young
politicians in those schools regularly ignore internet. I do not blame
them, as long as free info flow means completely new approach which
eliminates big part of traditional doctrine.

> A method that could be used to certify someone – a political figure I
> assume – as TOP is something I have a lot of trouble imagining. Where
> do you start? How can you be sure you are not only being given access
> to the records that go in favour of the applicant? Would it take a long
> time (high costs likely if so) to audit an applicant and after that to
> check compliance? Gale, could you give a description of how you see
> this in practical terms?

So. Why do I think about individual, not organization? In that way we
do not have to make no speculations. All I need is my gut and feeling
of what is right and what is wrong. I can write manifest for my name.
It will be probably the same thing as other people who understand TOP
philosophically will adopt. I know that some people who agree with that
only at declarative level wont accept it and that is actually the
point, as long as it is very popular among politicians to think that
people are cattle/lemmings who do not deserve truth who can not respect
truth, so that todays politics is just an image of what works fine. And
these same people on declarative level are for free speach, freedom of
information, public has the right to know and similar stuff. When I get
oriented to myself only and what i feel, I do not have to think about
these speculations of what other people think, which is rather
importnat thing, I belive.

How does it look like? Like regular manifest. Saying what is not
existing right now, what I am pissed off at, what I believe it is
important and why I do things in a way I do them. Of course, to make
some better thing, stuff needs to be passed through many more brains,
but this is the start that makes sense to me. It has nothing to
certification houses, but mere explanation why TOP anyway? What I want
to do with TOP, why do I work in a TOP manner even when it is not so
opportunistic and why it pays off.

In that way some other “maybe” thinkers might make final decision and
become TOP which is rather important thing.

ATB,

Gale

>
> Best regards,
>
> Serge

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-11-24 17:54:32+0100

MG wrote:

> This is my point, AD should be an organization to rely on.
> I would probaly have no problem having all members to sign that the
> will obey TOP.
> A more pratical way of doing it is to write the TOP rules into the
> statutes of the party.

AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.

> I will propose that the day there is a certification on the table.
> I see the certification as a quality mark and by such, there cannot be
> changes constantly to it, improvements has to be decided upon in steps,
> after TOP-discussions ofcoruse.
> And after such decision of improvement or change, there need to be a
> certain time for the before certified organizations to implement it and
> rewrite their statutes or other important rules.
>
> If the organization do not implement the new TOP, the certification
> will be cancelled after this implementation time.
> Just as it works with ISO9000 (yes,yes we engineeers hate it…but in
> the democary business I really see the need for certification) or
> similar certifications in the industry.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become
certificator?

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Serge — 2006-11-22 16:08:48+0100

The birth of political ISO certification. Talk about what a kick in the
anthill that would be…

Joke aside, I agree that a certification makes sense for organizations.
And I must say I find the idea of certifying individuals quite
incongruous. Most if not all certifications of individuals today are
done following some kind of training and standardized form of exam or
assessment (thinking of doctors, lawyers, techniciancs, assermented
public officers, etc).

A method that could be used to certify someone – a political figure I
assume – as TOP is something I have a lot of trouble imagining. Where
do you start? How can you be sure you are not only being given access
to the records that go in favour of the applicant? Would it take a long
time (high costs likely if so) to audit an applicant and after that to
check compliance? Gale, could you give a description of how you see
this in practical terms?

Best regards,

Read more… / Lire plus…

Serge