Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 25/07 01:12 +2 Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 23/01 00:00 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 27/07 10:31 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 12:37 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 12:33 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 11:53 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 24/07 14:19 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 11/07 05:40 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 10/05 09:54 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 09/05 15:51 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
Latest posts
- 23/01 00:00 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 27/07 10:31 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 12:37 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 12:33 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 11:53 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 25/07 01:34 +0 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 25/07 01:12 +2 Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 24/07 14:19 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 11/07 05:40 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 10/05 09:54 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: How to improve communication on the list?
-
echarp wrote:
+1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren’t all issues opened to discussion by anyone?)
I am not sure I understand you again.
4 is ment to each one of us if want to start new topic uses stuff that already exist on this group, but is spreaded around, making it not reachable to average user who wont lurk all around for it.
In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which will allow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negative consequences but “not fighting against mess reputation”, we are talking about list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, but if we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that line will profit.
Is there still the problem about it, E?
ATB,
Gale > echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 06:38:24AM -0700, illegale wrote:
echarp wrote: > +1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren’t all issues > opened to discussion by anyone?)
I am not sure I understand you again.
Oups, I meant number 3
- Invite other members you find would be interested in it
But I guess this is just a manner to open discussion, and that every body else is of course invited.
In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which will allow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negative consequences but “not fighting against mess reputation”, we are talking about list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, but if we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that line will profit.
What is mess reputation?
Is there still the problem about it, E?
No real problem, I’m definitely fine about this kind of thread management. Plus it will thus be much easier to vote on individual messages/issues ;)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 06:38:24AM -0700, illegale wrote: > echarp wrote: > > +1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren’t all issues > > opened to discussion by anyone?) > > I am not sure I understand you again.
Oups, I meant number 3
3. Invite other members you find would be interested in it
OK. So, it is just an option I prefer to use in the moment other members should be informed about discussion. Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.
As long as some members can not participate on the group allways, they have to announce it, to find out what to do than _wait_inform by telephonne/do without them/. Is this needed in this moment, I do not know, so, if you have problem with it, we can leave it beside in this moment.
But I guess this is just a manner to open discussion, and that every body else is of course invited.
In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which will allow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negative consequences but “not fighting against mess reputation”, we are talking about list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, but if we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that line will profit.
What is mess reputation?
Something bad :-)
Suppose taht we will all apreciate if we systemise this group a little bit more than it is systemised now. but if somebody wont do such thing, it is his right, yet those who want to systemise group wont respect it/him because of that.
Is there still the problem about it, E?
No real problem, I’m definitely fine about this kind of thread management. Plus it will thus be much easier to vote on individual messages/issues ;)
Cool!
ATB,
Galeecharp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote:
Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.
This is a good idea, but I predict that it can’t scale with participants and issues…
Implicit agreement will not work when issues and voices are buried in a mass of other issues and voices.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote: > Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all > follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means > we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.
This is a good idea, but I predict that it can’t scale with participants and issues…
Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?
Implicit agreement will not work when issues and voices are buried in a mass of other issues and voices.
OK, that would be a second step. Articulation of decision making process and articulation of conclusions. Right?
Nevertheless, it seems to me that this part is actually belonging to second step.
So, my opinion about 3 is 0.
If we think it is good to invite members, we will invite them.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:20:33AM -0700, illegale wrote:
echarp wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote: > > Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all > > follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means > > we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together. > > This is a good idea, but I predict that it can’t scale with > participants and issues…
Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?
What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need to vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?
If we think it is good to invite members, we will invite them.
Of course we are always free to :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need to vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?
What a minute!
Are you discussing todays forum now or the final system? AD can handle thousands if issues without to much struggle for the average citizen but can we keep this discussion to the current situation please?
+1
-
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:25:51PM -0000, MG wrote:
What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need to vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?
What a minute! Are you discussing todays forum now or the final system?
Yes I am. Would it not be great if this current forum could scale up? If our current postings were not lost?
AD can handle thousands if issues without to much struggle for the average citizen but can we keep this discussion to the current situation please?
How would issues be organised? (I did write a mail about that, care to pursue it?)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
Did you read the AD party programme or my explanations of it? Organized in a list where the user can sort on age of proposal, originator of it, accumulated support (=forecast on when the vote can be over), area of interest etc etc.
+1
-
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:58:16PM -0000, MG wrote:
Did you read the AD party programme or my explanations of it?
I read it but didn’t keep it in mind. Sorry.
Organized in a list where the user can sort on age of proposal, originator of it, accumulated support (=forecast on when the vote can be over), area of interest etc etc.
Area of interest, hum hum, what is that? How is it associated with issues?
All other criteria don’t seem like enough to me. Thousands of issues would look like a nightmare if sorted only on date, author or support.
Anyway, organising issues is VERY important, yet we haven’t discussed it much… :-(
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
Dear Emmanuel
On Monday 08 May 2006 18:19, echarp wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:58:16PM -0000, MG wrote: > Did you read the AD party programme or my explanations of it?
I read it but didn’t keep it in mind. Sorry.
Organized in a list where the user can sort on age of proposal, originator of it, accumulated support (=forecast on when the vote can be over), area of interest etc etc.
Area of interest, hum hum, what is that? How is it associated with issues?
All other criteria don’t seem like enough to me. Thousands of issues would look like a nightmare if sorted only on date, author or support.
Anyway, organising issues is VERY important, yet we haven’t discussed it much… :-(
Why not take a SourceForge approach as disscused earlier. Issues organized in projects or organizations. Each project has his own forum, voting system, wiki etc. where issues can be organized quite well.
Best regards
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1
-
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 07:44:25PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
Why not take a SourceForge approach as disscused earlier. Issues organized in projects or organizations. Each project has his own forum, voting system, wiki etc. where issues can be organized quite well.
I actually have a “book of laws” approach. Where a group of individuals is given a tool used to democratically write those books.
And I would separate the books themselves from their voters, each book elements being approved or not through electoral lists.
Where are managed electoral lists in you opinion? (no one here discusses those lists)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
I agree, the “rule of law” is an agreed upon process. We need to have only one topic per initiative. Than each topic is voted upon based on it’s merit.
As we sort through the issues, we will have the most supported at top. Than we can refine and vote again. When a consensus is obtained we could submit to the Simpol project which would than be considered world wide for vote. Bruce
+1
-
-
-
Area of interset is maybe wrong wording, I mean is it about infrastucture, education, health care in terms of political area. The AD vision is:
There will probably never be thousands of issues since few will be in a state over a certain support ready for a prognostized finalisation (a certain level of the accumulated support depending on the democracy constant set in the system) within say 4 weeks, but still never to be decided upon by reaching the level of 1.
At least not if you filter out political areas that you don’t care about or have delegated.
A lot will never gain any big support at all due the just the fact that people (and polticians today!) can only concentrate on a limited number of issues in the same time.
This is not a problem since good decision making will lead to less problem with old issues giving more space for new issues once the old ones are well handled and finsihed.So of course we can discuss ways of sorting issues but much will actually be handled automagically by the AD system. There is no need to everyone to read all new issues. If an issue is well written and has good arguments it is possible to promote like in todays political world.
These good proposals will be the only one needed to handle for the average user. They will also be the ones news media will be reporting from.
Bad written, non funded or not liked proposals will never bother the average user.
Only if you have very deep interest in a certain political field, you may choose to watch for new proposals that may have been put.And finally, as said before, this is not an issue anyway for the current TOP-group.
The issue can well be handled later once we have decided on to start to make decisions at all…using AD or any other democratic principle.
+1
-
I comment on two “comments, First
This random theme promotion is NOT GOOD. If we look this group, we can not find one single topic where several members decided to solve one single problem till the moment they succeed in that.
So, my first reccomendation about this is this procedure:
1. Articulate the topic 2. Start the topic 3. Invite other members you find would be interested in it 4. All the off topic that suits to that topic on the other themes, move there. 5 If there come out the new questions, articulate them and open new topic or join it to existing topic about it.Second recommendation would be finding way of articulation of the procedure of how to get conclusions of the topic and conclusions themselves. Yet, first recommendations is the first thing to do.
Bruce comments
I do not think all who “drop in” understand the goal of TP as topic in eParlement nor how to respond to items. I suggest a “face page “first read” which explains this and basic style to post and respond. People do not involve themselves unless they understand the process. They do not want to appear “stupid” or be flamed.The more information on “how to” the more people will be involved. It they are “comfortable” and feel “accepted” they will participate. We non programmers sometimes feel inferior to the makers of these programs.
So, to enlarge the program, to begin topics, we need to know that is what you want to do.
Perhaps a “test” by beginning to use for issue discussion?
Should we begin on “world issues” rather than local so all the world people can become involved? Bruce
+1
-
25/07/07 01:12
Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
It seems to me we are fragmented. Discuss on le Parlement? How many discuss on Bulletin Board? Email lists loose subjects so that is not good. I like WDDM Forum, however it seems people do not bother to log in. If a group exists, the people “hash out” talk things over, and from that come up with ideas for improvement of the group. (community, government, country, family etc.)
Than they present the idea to the group, who further discuss, modify it and perhaps agree on the final outcome.
Could we do this on leParlement, by introducing a topic (such as this) and than people respond their ideas directly to this topic? Than as we come to final outcome(s) they could be put in a separate topic and voted upon?
Please respond directly to this post, so we can build ideas and resolutions like we were just discussing this in the “neighborhood”. Bruce
+2
-
24/07/07 14:19
Re: How to improve communication on the list?
Hi
I’m afraid the TOP group is rather dead now. Plus it didn’t manage to generate any thing, except interesting conversation on what is transparency.
Well, to me this was interesting.
Don’t hesitate to just join on the main http://leparlement.org page, and discuss there. Or any sub forum, even one you can create (simply use a cool subject for it, the url will be generated from that subject).
There is of course a test forum where anybody can play as they want.
+1
+1
-
25/07/07 01:12
-
-
-
-
-
MG wrote:
What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need to vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?
What a minute! Are you discussing todays forum now or the final system? AD can handle thousands if issues without to much struggle for the average citizen but can we keep this discussion to the current situation please?
OK. I suppose we can involve new parameters in the moment we see the need for such. In the same time, importance of the issue is needed right now IMO. As long as AD is the only system that involves importance stratification. I am pro using it.
Yet, that wuold probalby be second set that involves processing conclusion stuff. Or maybe even before that?
+1
-
-
echarp wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:20:33AM -0700, illegale wrote: > echarp wrote: > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote: > > > Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all > > > follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means > > > we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together. > > > > This is a good idea, but I predict that it can’t scale with > > participants and issues… > > Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?
What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need to vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?
I suppose it is not right thing for millions. Yet, open play is constantly changing play. Larger numbers, different modes becoming more usefull and stuff.
If we think it is good to invite members, we will invite them.
Of course we are always free to :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
-
-
-
-
One of the reasons still mixing different issue with each other is the lack of more than one fourm.
In PHPbb there are different categories possible.
Here we have to live with a more strict use of different threads.
+1
-