Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
Dear Emmanuel
BTW: what kind of P2P architecture e.g. protocol did you have in mind? GNUtella?
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:10:47PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
BTW: what kind of P2P architecture e.g. protocol did you have in mind? GNUtella?If we use PGP signatures, then the protocol is not that important, what is important is that the signed data reaches its destinations.
The first protocol I would rather implement is one of the oldest around: mail! :-)
We could use our current tools to observe and interact with the system. Many will read and validate (or not) PGP signatures, most tools will allow to PGP sign mails.
There is no reason not to also use any and all other protocols available. freenet, gnutella, ftp…
The message is more important than the messenger! :-)
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Emmanuel
On Saturday 22 April 2006 14:10, echarp wrote:
If we use PGP signatures, then the protocol is not that important,what is important is that the signed data reaches its destinations.
I agree; what I had in mind was which kind of P2P architecture to use: fully
heterarchical (only nodes), semi-hierarchical (nodes and supernodes) or
hierarchical (nodes and a central index node).
I recommend semi-hierarchical because it’s the most reliable.
The first protocol I would rather implement is one of the oldest around:mail! :-)
:-D Yes but there would still be some workaround.
We could use our current tools to observe and interact with the system.Many will read and validate (or not) PGP signatures, most tools willallow to PGP sign mails.
Agreed!
There is no reason not to also use any and all other protocolsavailable. freenet, gnutella, ftp…The message is more important than the messenger! :-)
Also agreed ;-)
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:59:27PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
I agree; what I had in mind was which kind of P2P architecture to use: fully heterarchical (only nodes), semi-hierarchical (nodes and supernodes) or hierarchical (nodes and a central index node).I recommend semi-hierarchical because it’s the most reliable.What would you say if there is one node type, which can be used differently?
To me it looks very much like a fishnet! :)
There is data not in the mail protocol, we can simply expand it using “text” and simple markups (like yaml).The first protocol I would rather implement is one of the oldest around:mail! :-):-D Yes but there would still be some workaround.
This will be the case with any medium.
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Emmanuel
On Saturday 22 April 2006 15:20, echarp wrote:
What would you say if there is one node type, which can be useddifferently?* generate, sign and post issues, votes or delegations* transmit issues, votes and delegations* stock all issues, votes and delegations for verifications* tabulate votes and delegations according to electoral lists* manage electoral lists* …
I believe that the things you stated could be done by every node, but the thing I’m talking about is which node should be able to route messages through the network, index nodes which are on-line, enhance search capabilities…?
To me it looks very much like a fishnet! :)
Hmmm… well I think I see the system quite different than you. As I understood you, you would like to create something like a “dd-enhanced” forum. I had a more complicated task in mind. I’d like to create (as I stated before) something like a SourceForge only for political projects and organizations.
So I see the architecture of the system like this:
Project/organization management system - project 1 - project 1’s forum - decision making system - procedures - voting system - brainstorming techniques etc. - project 1’s wiki - project documentation - mind-mapping tools etc. - project 2 - … - organization 1 - organization 1’s forum - decision making system - procedures - voting system - brainstorming techniques etc. - organization 1’s wiki - constitution and documents - balanced score card etc. - organization 2 - … - etc.
In this way everyone can create his own project and/or organization thus everyone can propose issues to be discussed and/or voted on inside projects and organizations. Also this makes the system more organized since only issues according to each project/organization would be disscussed, and we would not have a large conglomerat of different issues on one place. This also addresses the problem of small issues (Donji Zagon) which can have their own projects in an OpenSource manner.
On second thought it seems to me that e-mail is not the right choice. How would you create an on-line search in the system? Each e-mail message is not directly forwarded to the recipient but first to a smtp server, which then forwards it to a pop server which then forwards it to the recipient when he wants to download the message. If you create a P2P network above e-mail protocol, you cannot create on-line search since it will take to much time. I think http would be a much better choice than e-mail (btw. gnutella works with http). Sine RoR is a framework for web-apps http seams a more natural choice. What do you think?There is data not in the mail protocol, we can simply expand it using"text" and simple markups (like yaml).This will be the case with any medium.The first protocol I would rather implement is one of the oldestaround: mail! :-):-D Yes but there would still be some workaround.
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:42:13PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
I believe that the things you stated could be done by every node, but the thing I’m talking about is which node should be able to route messages through the network, index nodes which are on-line, enhance search capabilities…?Wouldn’t participants decide how their personal node will act?
Hmmm… well I think I see the system quite different than you. As I understood you, you would like to create something like a “dd-enhanced” forum. I had a more complicated task in mind. I’d like to create (as I stated before) something like a SourceForge only for political projects and organizations.
Ok, I think I’m getting a much much better understanding of your vision!!!
Yes, I mostly am thinking about some sort of DD forum.
How could a wiki or a brainstorming or mind mapping tool be made democratic? Or do you want a gforge project collating all useful tools in one place?
I’m particularly curious about wikis. Mail, chat, news, forum, all are more or less concepts along the same lines, but wikis, could they ever integrate that family?
This also addresses the problem of small issues (Donji Zagon) whichcan have their own projects in an OpenSource manner.
Is it not a matter of defining whose vote are counted?
On second thought it seems to me that e-mail is not the right choice. How would you create an on-line search in the system? Each e-mail message is not directly forwarded to the recipient but first to a smtp server, which then forwards it to a pop server which then forwards it to the recipient when he wants to download the message. If you create a P2P network above e-mail protocol, you cannot create on-line search since it will take to much time. I think http would be a much better choice than e-mail (btw. gnutella works with http). Sine RoR is a framework for web-apps http seams a more natural choice. What do you think?
email is just a communication protocol. It of course does not alleviate the need for servers. The features you are describing would most certainly be implemented on servers, RoR or another technology.
echarp
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Emmanuel
On Sunday 23 April 2006 01:26, echarp wrote:
Wouldn’t participants decide how their personal node will act?* a casual voter could use his own node to generate, sign and transmit hisactions. * a more seasoned user could act as a transfer point, allow hisfriends to use his node. * an observer could use his own server toreplicate and check calculations. * a marketer would publish his node,issues and results to the world. * an institution could apply whatevertheir node communicates.
Of course! But this is matter of content; not matter of system design. Everyone can decide which information he wants on his system, and which services there should be available. I’m talking about the layer under the application layer. A P2P protocol must have special messages for searching, acknowledge, transfer etc. and a common architecture (e.g. semi hierarchical).
Ok, I think I’m getting a much much better understanding of yourvision!!!Yes, I mostly am thinking about some sort of DD forum.How could a wiki or a brainstorming or mind mapping tool be madedemocratic? Or do you want a gforge project collating all useful toolsin one place?
This is an important issue to be discused. As I see it, the goal is not only to create a system for “true democracy” support; but also a system which will function better than other systems around (e.g. systems implemented in todays governments). So before I address your questions, let me explain the integrated decision making process which is recommended by scientist from the decision theory. One of the greatest problems in todays organizations (and governments and any other institutions are organizations) is how to achieve good decisions and avoid bad ones. One of the answers to this is the integrated decision making process which has the following phases
When following all this steps when a decision has to be made – the outcome
will most probably be a good decision and if not, the system gives the answer
why was the decision not a good one.
Now to address your question. In the first phase of this process (decision
preparation) there are various group based creative problem solving
techniques which can be addressed through the systems I proposed. For problem
and goals definition wikis and mind maps in combination are a great tool. For
information gathering wikis and caching+upload. For generation of possible
solutions i proposed in TiAktiv two group based decision making techniques
which are complementary (e.g. one is for the generation of as many as
possible different and creative solutions – wide; and the other is for
generation of very specific solutions which because of constraints in the
process – narrow). The techniques are mind map idea writing and the Delphi
technique respectfully. Mind map idea writing is something like brainstorming
but based on mind maps which are circulated between participants which
allways add a new idea to the map. Critiques are NOT allowed until the
process is over. Then evaluation can start. The Delphi technique is based on
questionares about the problem which are sent to participants. They answer
the questions and the results are used to form new questionares. This process
is looped until a common concensus is reached.
For the evaluation of created solutions there are various multicriteria
decision making methods like decision tree, analytical hierarchy process,
electre and promethee. They use an easy to understand approach to find the
best solution according to stated criteriae.
You see, this is what I had in mind when talking about mind mapping, wikis and
other systems.
I’m particularly curious about wikis. Mail, chat, news, forum, all aremore or less concepts along the same lines, but wikis, could they everintegrate that family?
I think wikis are the best tool around to manage documentation autopoietically!!!! They created a big bang on the Internet ;-) They are (when asking me) a truly democratic tool for managing constitution, laws, political project documentation, procedures etc.
I’m not sure if I understand your question.This also addresses the problem of small issues (Donji Zagon) whichcan have their own projects in an OpenSource manner.Is it not a matter of defining whose vote are counted?
email is just a communication protocol. It of course does not alleviatethe need for servers. The features you are describing would mostcertainly be implemented on servers, RoR or another technology.
Aha, now I think I understand. You mean to support the possibility that users can interact with the system and others systems through e-mail? This is no problem!
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
…One of the answers to this is the integrated decision making processwhich has the following phases1. Decision preparation a. Problem definition b. Goals definition c. Information gathering d. Generation of possible solutions e. Evaluation of possible solutions2. Decision making3. Decision implementation4. Decision controlWhen following all this steps when a decision has to be made – the outcome will most probably be a good decision and if not, the system gives the answer why was the decision not a good one….I am fond of brainstorms and wikis, but what form would the processes you advocate take? Obligatory or optional? As a workflow, or as unconnected tools available for those willing to use them?
Sometimes, aren’t decisions taken during one’s sleep much sounder than those made using a pen and paper and calculating the pros and cons logically?
On Sunday 23 April 2006 01:26, echarp wrote:I understand, but I do not see how a wiki can be made democratic. To me a wiki is just a tool where users can post, modify, delete at will without losing any data at any point.I’m particularly curious about wikis. Mail, chat, news, forum, all aremore or less concepts along the same lines, but wikis, could they everintegrate that family?I think wikis are the best tool around to manage documentation autopoietically!!!! They created a big bang on the Internet ;-) They are (when asking me) a truly democratic tool for managing constitution, laws, political project documentation, procedures etc.
Is it not one tool, among many, that can only be added on top of others?
But for packaging and convenience, what would be the added value of a GForge project around it?
To me, democracy is really legitimate when its decisions are taken by those who will be impacted by the consequences. It is a matter of responsibility.I’m not sure if I understand your question.This also addresses the problem of small issues (Donji Zagon) whichcan have their own projects in an OpenSource manner.Is it not a matter of defining whose vote are counted?
The small issues are not of much interest, and should not be, to a foreign party. Of course that foreign individual can express himself, act as a counsellor or expert, but the decision should be made according to an electoral list of those concerned.
Well, that electoral list appears to me as a solution. Is it not?
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Emmanuel
On Sunday 23 April 2006 21:57, echarp wrote:
I am fond of brainstorms and wikis, but what form would the processesyou advocate take? Obligatory or optional? As a workflow, or asunconnected tools available for those willing to use them?As an optional workflow. It’s about transparent documentation of political decisions and greater efficiency of political decisions.
Sometimes, aren’t decisions taken during one’s sleep much sounder thanthose made using a pen and paper and calculating the pros and conslogically?
I agree if we consider decisions on a personal level. But what’s whit decisions which affect potentially milions of people with a lot of different issues to be considered? In such cases it’s much better to consider each detail and find as many ideas as possible. Also in this way people who will in the end vote on such decisions get informed about it.
Take the following example:
Say someone proposes a poll (voting) a problem which has to be solved. The
poll looks like this:
“Do you accept that French should lower the taxes?”
o Yes
o No
I assume that most people will vote yes on this poll without any consideration. But there are a lot of issues concerning a tax lowering: How will that affect the budget? How will that affect the economy? Who will lower the taxes? Which taxes should be lowered? How much should they be lowered? etc.
If there’s no procedure, like in this case, all this questions won’t find answers or they will be answered “on the fly”.
If the same problem is approached with an integrated decision making process
it will look like this:
Someone proposes that there’s a problem with French taxes – they are to high.
In a wiki system (maybe with some mind map to add better organization) the
first for him (and others who think the same) is to define the problem. This
and that taxes are to high because of that, that, that and that.
After that goals of this decision have to be stated (also through the wiki),
e.g. we want to achieve:
Than information has to be gathered (also organized on a wiki, maybe cached
from another site on the web, or a forum, or a news group).
The income tax is 3.5 % (fictive).
The budged of French is this high.
Analysis of an academic showed that if it’s lowered to 3.2 % it would have the
following implications.
This guy on this forum stated that he has to live in such bad conditions
because of the to high tax.
etc.
Afterwards possible solutions can be generated (e.g. through the Delphi
technique).
A questionare among interested people is created:
How much would you change the income tax?
How much would you change the other tax?
How much would you change the budget?
Who is responsible for the implementation of this change?
When should the implementation take place?
etc.
This questionare is circled through participants and reformulated until a real
proposal can be stated e.g.
“Which of the following options do you agree most?”
o Do not change the tax at all
o Lower income tax to 3.2% as of 31st December 2006., Tax department is
responsible
o Lower income tax to 3.1% and raise the other taxes to fill the gap in the
budget; as of 31st December 2006., Tax department is responsible
This proposals can be evaluated by those who want to vote on this proposal through multicriteria decision making methods.
In this way it is more probable that a good solution will be proposed, that there will be a “hand on guide” to the implementation of the decision and in the end that a better solution will be accepted.
So say after the voting option 2 is accepted. Than the decision has to be implemented through the tax department until 31st December 2006. Through the decision preparation phase responsibility, concrete steps, dates and measurement are defined. Afterwards the implications of the decision can be measured (e.g. measures like BDP, citizen satisfaction, new jobs opened etc.) and if the decision is good the measures will show that. If it was not a good decision this will be reflected in the defined measures, so another decision can be made.
It maybe looks that this is useless complication of the whole system, but in
my humble opinion it’s necessary to get a more efficient political system
than the ones functioning out there. Basing the system “only” on a forum and
voting algorithms will bring more democracy, but will it bring more
efficiency?
The integrated decision making process is something like a “hands on guide” to
better decisions and recommended form decision theorist (so it’s not my
invention). As I said I study information and organization systems, and the
praxis of management shows that this is a good way. So why do not try to make
our system even better?
I understand, but I do not see how a wiki can be made democratic. To mea wiki is just a tool where users can post, modify, delete at willwithout losing any data at any point.Is it not one tool, among many, that can only be added on top of others?
Of course! It’s a tool for organizing knowledge. See, the reason why I propose wikis as an integrated part of the system is because of the inefficiency of forum systems to organize and keep knowledge and information. If you ever participated for some time on a forum, you probably noticed that the same questions come from time to time over and over again. Some forums have a FAQ or behavior rules, which is a step forward. Lets make another step and ad wikis as an integrated part to organize forumers knowledge in a beautiful and efficient way!
But for packaging and convenience, what would be the added value of aGForge project around it?
The strength of OpenSource ;-) See, beside the “internet democracy”, “e-democracy,” “direct democracy” and other concepts there’s the idea of OpenDemocracy (OpenPolitics) which is the O in TOP. OpenSource projects are a great thing, don’t you agree? So why not using the benefits OpenSource gives us in politics? Full transparency of code (e.g. political project/organization documentation), freedom (everyone is allowed to start his own political project/organization), creativity and users feedback, continuous optimization, autopoiesis to name a few ;-)
To me, democracy is really legitimate when its decisions are taken bythose who will be impacted by the consequences. It is a matter ofresponsibility.The small issues are not of much interest, and should not be, to aforeign party. Of course that foreign individual can express himself,act as a counsellor or expert, but the decision should be made accordingto an electoral list of those concerned.Well, that electoral list appears to me as a solution. Is it not?
Maybe it is, but through an OpenSource approach you could have continuous optimization and better organization. Also those who are interested (most probably those who are affected) can get involved and give their best to find a good solution. You said that you love Wikipedia – now see how is it possible that in such a chaos, where thousands of people work together still unbelievable knowledge is organized? This is a matter of the phenomenon called autopoiesis – and this is something I’d like to achieve with our system.
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 10:59:23PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 21:57, echarp wrote:Take the following example:Say someone proposes a poll (voting) a problem which has to be solved. The poll looks like this:“Do you accept that French should lower the taxes?”o Yeso NoI anch should lower the taxes?"o Yeso NoI assume that most people will vote yes on this poll without any consideration. But there are a lot of issues concerning a tax lowering: How will that affect the budget? How will that affect the economy? Who will lower the taxes? Which taxes should be lowered? How much should they be lowered? etc.Particularly in France, I am not sure at all that lowering taxes would be popular. The solidarity in “Liberty Equality Solidarity” is considered a very serious matter by many, and many also want France to be important in today’s world.
If there’s no procedure, like in this case, all this questions won’t find answers or they will be answered “on the fly”.
The way questions are framed is also of HUGE importance. For a budget for example, you could actually break it up in all its parts and ask the voter by which percentage each should be increased or decreased.
You could then answer on the top elements, or delve into their intricacies.
And to each element could be associated its own forum for documentation, links and deliberations.
If the same problem is approached with an integrated decision making process it will look like this:… The integrated decision making process is something like a “hands on guide” to better decisions and recommended form decision theorist (so it’s not my invention). As I said I study information and organization systems, and the praxis of management shows that this is a good way. So why do not try to make our system even better?
I disagree on one part, politic are not just a matter of votes, forums, wiki or other such tools, they encompass all of society. The most prominent being television.
Competition in the tools space will be important, don’t you think? Don’t we already many many many ways to be informed, to discuss, to weight things?
What of this diversity?
…the reason why I propose wikis as an integrated part of the system is because of the inefficiency of forum systems to organize and keep knowledge and information. If you ever participated for some time on a forum, you probably noticed that the same questions come from time to time over and over again. Some forums have a FAQ or behavior rules, which is a step forward. Lets make another step and ad wikis as an integrated part to organize forumers knowledge in a beautiful and efficient way!
Forums can be just as well organised as wikis. Proof is, a FAQ section is easy to set up and manage. Forums can be organised amon themselves in a super forum, which can also be set in yet another hierarchy. All the way to the top! :-)
Originally wikis were just a big mess, if we could vote on forum posts to have them sorted, modified or deleted, could we not obtain the same exact kind of data, but democratically?
Lacking the same ease of use and rapidity? Yes. Yet how else if it is to be democratic?
OpenDemocracy (OpenPolitics) which is the O in TOP. OpenSource projects are a great thing, don’t you agree? So why not using the benefits OpenSource gives us in politics? Full transparency of code (e.g. political project/organization documentation), freedom (everyone is allowed to start his own political project/organization), creativity and users feedback, continuous optimization, autopoiesis to name a few ;-)
What is the added value besides packaging, convenience? (I’m already a fan of Free Software and internet)
But how can one make it democratic? Wikipedia relies and needs administrators who will ban, lock, organise. Is that even possible in a democratic setting?…The small issues are not of much interest, and should not be, to aforeign party. Of course that foreign individual can express himself,act as a counsellor or expert, but the decision should be made accordingto an electoral list of those concerned….Maybe it is, but through an OpenSource approach you could have continuous optimization and better organization. Also those who are interested (most probably those who are affected) can get involved and give their best to find a good solution. You said that you love Wikipedia – now see how is it possible that in such a chaos, where thousands of people work together still unbelievable knowledge is organized? This is a matter of the phenomenon called autopoiesis – and this is something I’d like to achieve with our system.
How can a wiki open to the whole world concentrate on the matters of a small adriatic village? Who will administrate it?
By the way, originally I wanted not to have a web forum, but to make a collaborative writing tool (see http://vvv.sf.net). I still want that, just it has evolved much more broadly…
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Emmanuel
On Monday 24 April 2006 20:24, echarp wrote:
Particularly in France, I am not sure at all that lowering taxes wouldbe popular. The solidarity in “Liberty Equality Solidarity” isconsidered a very serious matter by many, and many also want France tobe important in today’s world.
OK, this is not the point.
Of course, this is why we (TiAtiv) propouse the integrated decision making proces as a framework for questions. It’s a system to ORGANIZE decisions, questions and problems to be solved.If there’s no procedure, like in this case, all this questions won’t findanswers or they will be answered “on the fly”.The way questions are framed is also of HUGE importance. For a budgetfor example, you could actually break it up in all its parts and ask thevoter by which percentage each should be increased or decreased.You could then answer on the top elements, or delve into theirintricacies.And to each element could be associated its own forum for documentation,links and deliberations.
OK, but this has no affect on the issue disscoused.If the same problem is approached with an integrated decision makingprocess it will look like this:…The integrated decision making process is something like a “hands onguide” to better decisions and recommended form decision theorist (soit’s not my invention). As I said I study information and organizationsystems, and the praxis of management shows that this is a good way. Sowhy do not try to make our system even better?I disagree on one part, politic are not just a matter of votes, forums,wiki or other such tools, they encompass all of society. The mostprominent being television.
Competition in the tools space will be important, don’t you think? Don’twe already many many many ways to be informed, to discuss, to weightthings?What of this diversity?
I don’t think I understand you.
OK, who will organize the forum? Will it organize it self?…the reason why I proposewikis as an integrated part of the system is because of the inefficiencyof forum systems to organize and keep knowledge and information. If youever participated for some time on a forum, you probably noticed that thesame questions come from time to time over and over again. Some forumshave a FAQ or behavior rules, which is a step forward. Lets make anotherstep and ad wikis as an integrated part to organize forumers knowledge ina beautiful and efficient way!Forums can be just as well organised as wikis. Proof is, a FAQ sectionis easy to set up and manage. Forums can be organised amon themselves ina super forum, which can also be set in yet another hierarchy. All theway to the top! :-)
A FAQ cannot take advantage of self organization as good as a wiki can. Especially not for project management.
Originally wikis were just a big mess, if we could vote on forum poststo have them sorted, modified or deleted, could we not obtain the sameexact kind of data, but democratically?Lacking the same ease of use and rapidity? Yes. Yet how else if it is tobe democratic?
Why do lot’s of OpenSource project have their wikis? Because they want to take advantage of user groups an autopoietically create documentation. If you ever engaged a disscusion on polliticaly oriented forums, you’ll know to appriciate this.
A wiki can be easily democratic, example:
Here’s a text I wrote about this part of project B:
TextTextTextTextTextTextTextTextText
Should it be published in the wiki of the project?
o Yes
o No
Wiki’s are a new paradigm of documentation publishing, which take full advantage of hypertext (interconnection especially). FAQ-s are a pretty old concept which is good, but I think wikis are better! Why not take advantage of this great concept?
Organized documentation, self-organization, users contributions, versioning system, an OpenSource licence…OpenDemocracy (OpenPolitics) which is the O in TOP. OpenSource projectsare a great thing, don’t you agree? So why not using the benefitsOpenSource gives us in politics? Full transparency of code (e.g.politicalproject/organization documentation), freedom (everyone is allowed tostart his own political project/organization), creativity and usersfeedback, continuous optimization, autopoiesis to name a few ;-)What is the added value besides packaging, convenience? (I’m already afan of Free Software and internet)
I think I allready answered this one ;-)But how can one make it democratic? Wikipedia relies and needsadministrators who will ban, lock, organise. Is that even possible in ademocratic setting?…The small issues are not of much interest, and should not be, to aforeign party. Of course that foreign individual can express himself,act as a counsellor or expert, but the decision should be madeaccording to an electoral list of those concerned….Maybe it is, but through an OpenSource approach you could have continuousoptimization and better organization. Also those who are interested (mostprobably those who are affected) can get involved and give their best tofind a good solution. You said that you love Wikipedia – now see how isit possible that in such a chaos, where thousands of people work togetherstill unbelievable knowledge is organized? This is a matter of thephenomenon called autopoiesis – and this is something I’d like to achievewith our system.
How can a wiki open to the whole world concentrate on the matters of asmall adriatic village? Who will administrate it?
;-) OK try to understand the whole concept as a hierarchy (think about SourceForge):
The project/organization system Main page New project/organization … Search/Browse capabilties: Cathegories By geographical location Africa Asia Australia Europe … Croatia Adriatic coast PROJECT: Donji Zagon water supply infrastructure Forum (Communication about the problem) Wiki (Documentation of the project, solutions, licence etc.) ORGANIZATION: Akcija Mladih by Frković Forum (Communication of organization’s participants) Wiki (Documentation of the organization, initiatives, etc.) … North America South America By political issus By …
If you create a system which relies on autopoiesis the wiki+forum e.g. the project or the organization would be administered by those who are interested in this particular project/organization. Some soultions include an autopoietic filtering system (e.g. everyone can create his own view on the forum/wiki), an autopoietic administration and development system (e.g. through SD-2 or a similar concept those who are interested in administering and/or development could do it).
By the way, originally I wanted not to have a web forum, but to make acollaborative writing tool (see http://vvv.sf.net). I still want that,just it has evolved much more broadly…
I see. It’s easy to connect a forum+wiki system to e-mail ;-)
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer