[top-politics] Re: Question for Eric

[top-politics] Re: echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric

echarp — 2006-07-11 13:20:15+0200

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 03:42:41AM -0700, illegale wrote:

> As long as Leparlement is actually copying whole communication that is > being done at top – politics, we do not either risk anything if we keep > top politics as basic node and Leparlement as an option everyone can > actually choose to be primary one.

Just don’t forget that information goes from google groups to the parlement server, not the other way.

google groups => parlement

Read more… / Lire plus…

But you can and are welcome to use parlement, as some of you already do.

Your login is the name you use in your mails, me it’s echarp for example. Do login before you vote, otherwise you will use the “anon” persona which only controls one voice on every issue.

Of course all the votes directly set in mails are accounted for!

Like this one => +1 which is a valid vote used and accounted for.

As the need arise, we can also start other forums in parlement.

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric

illegale — 2006-07-11 12:42:41+0200

lpc1998 wrote:

> Many thanks, Emmanuel, for your patience in explaining the functioning of http://leparlement.org/test . Magnus’ proposal quoted below sounds interesting. The site appears superior to Google’s and it comes with the free services of a software engineer too: > > The Magnus Proposal: > > “Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies, > like ”http://leparlement.org/test">http://leparlement.org/test" > > > However, before I vote for it, I would like to have the views of Gale and Markus on the Magnus proposal. So what say you, Gale and Markus?

When I think of moving to another platform, I think of how many people can it stand in this very moment. Google has showed it can carry about 100 people with no bigger problems which is respectfull. On the other hand, software Emmanuel is developing is not yet tested, especially not in bigger numbers, so we have no tradition we can rely on.

Read more… / Lire plus…

In order of not going into eventual dead end, my suggestion is to make sure into this software capabilities, help Emmanuel to eventually improve them in order to be maximally safe that we are not going in wrong direction. In this way, what I find very important, we do not have to worry about loosing capital this group already has as long as it is promoted around at several places, but we can make it actually prosper.

As long as Leparlement is actually copying whole communication that is being done at top – politics, we do not either risk anything if we keep top politics as basic node and Leparlement as an option everyone can actually choose to be primary one.

ATB,
Gale

> > Best Regards > Eric Lim > > > > echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote: > > > > A standard mbox could also be distributed. > > > > Would you elaborate on this? > > An mbox is the classical format of a mail box. Basically a simple flat > file. > > Mails are the protocol used in parlement. Basically it’s a mailing list > server. > > > > There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing > > > post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an > > > admin will then only be able to remove content. > > > > Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for the > > TOP directory only in your website without having access to the other > > directories? > > The goal is to allow anybody willing, to be an administrator in a P2P > network of servers. > > Removing or modifying a post is not a feature, it’s just the logical > flaw with a server. With PGP signatures, modifications will be made > impossible, but there will still be the possibility to block or remove a > post. > > The way to go around that flaw is that users will have to be aware of > it, and check that their posts are replicated on at least one other > server. > > > > They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in a > > > popup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future, > > > but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be > > > made anonymous. > > > > Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List? > > Also fully public. And anybody will be able to create and manage any > number of electoral list. > > Right now this is not possible, everybody is in the global list, and > there is no filter yet. > > But I’m planning it for the coming weeks. Users coming on the server > will see all available lists, and will choose which one they want to > follow, and indicate the threshold under which posts will be hidden. > > For example a poll asking: > – are software patents stupid? > > To vote you go on the website, login, and vote, or you reply with a mail > containing the string 1, 0 or +1 (the vote has to be at the beginning > of a line). > > Using the electoral list “TOP” (containing 5 members) the result could > be +4. > > A visitor can select the TOP list, and indicate a threshold of +2, which > means that this poll will be visible. Another visitor using the same > list could select a threshold of +5, which means it will not be visible. > > An electoral list acts as a moderators group. > > > > > 4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?; > > > > > > There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software > > > itself is under the GPL. > > > > Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shall discuss them when > > the time comes. > > Right now I believe it’s under the classical copyright laws and > treaties, everybody’s post is his own. > > echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer) > > > > > —0-820335436-1152550427=:58328 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Google-AttachSize: 4179 > >

Many thanks, Emmanuel, for your patience in explaining the functioning of http://leparlement.org/test . Magnus’ proposal quoted below sounds interesting. The site appears superior to Google’s and it comes with the free services of a software engineer too:

The Magnus Proposal:

“Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies,
like ”http://leparlement.org/test" target=_blank>http://leparlement.org/test"

However, before I vote for it, I would like to have the views of Gale and Markus on the Magnus proposal. So what say you, Gale and Markus?

Best Regards

Eric Lim

echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:

> > A standard mbox could also be distributed.
>
> Would you elaborate on this?

An mbox is the classical format of a mail box. Basically a simple flat
file.

Mails are the protocol used in parlement. Basically it’s a mailing list
server.

> > There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing
> > post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an
> > admin will then only be able to remove content.
>
> Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for the
> TOP directory only in your website without having access to the other
> directories?

The goal is to allow anybody willing, to be an administrator in a P2P
network of servers.

Removing or modifying a post is not a feature, it’s just the logical
flaw with > a server. With PGP signatures, modifications will be made
impossible, but there will still be the possibility to block or remove a
post.

The way to go around that flaw is that users will have to be aware of
it, and check that their posts are replicated on at least one other
server.

> > They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in a
> > popup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future,
> > but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be
> > made anonymous.
>
> Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List?

Also fully public. And anybody will be able to create and manage any
number of electoral list.

Right now this is not possible, everybody is in the global list, and
there is no filter yet.

But I’m planning it for the coming weeks. Users coming on the server
will see all available lists, and will choose which > one they want to
follow, and indicate the threshold under which posts will be hidden.

For example a poll asking:
are software patents stupid?

To vote you go on the website, login, and vote, or you reply with a mail
containing the string -1, 0 or +1 (the vote has to be at the beginning
of a line).

Using the electoral list “TOP” (containing 5 members) the result could
be +4.

A visitor can select the TOP list, and indicate a threshold of +2, which
means that this poll will be visible. Another visitor using the same
list could select a threshold of +5, which means it will not be visible.

An electoral list acts as a moderators group.

> > > 4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?;
> >
> > There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software
> > itself is under the GPL.
>
> Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shall > discuss them when
> the time comes.

Right now I believe it’s under the classical copyright laws and
treaties, everybody’s post is his own.

echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer)

al copyright laws and
treaties, everybody’s post is his own.

echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer)

[top-politics] magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric

lpc1998 — 2006-07-06 17:56:58+0200

Hi [magnus], it is great that you are joining the group. The more members we have, the better the decisons will be. In the context of true democracy, the members have the ultimate authority. Leaders are elected or appointed to serve them. Leaders lead by their ability, dedication and hardwork and the members must give their leaders their best support in order to achieve group objectives. We shall move forward step by step and adopt our working procedures when they are needed. Btw, we have elected Gale our leader for one year with effect from 21 June 2006. You already have 2 votes from Gale and me. Now we need at least one more vote from either [echarp] or [markus] to confirm your admission into the group with voting rights or a casting vote from Gale. Let us follow the new member admission procedures. _____________________________________________________ [magnus]: “Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies,

like http://leparlement.org/test" We do need a better forum with voting capabilies. Regarding http://leparlement.org/test, 1 does it have an archive for all the messages and how it is accessed?; 2 Can we provide a hyperlink directly to an individual message in the archive or where it is located?; 3 In our case, can the voters on an issue made public?; 4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?; and 5 What are the additional new features the owner or moderator is able to add to the forum when they are required? Best Regards Eric Lim MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, Eric!

Ok, now I’m back..
It seems that I misunderstood your meaning of the word “leader”. You know this can be a very important word and we need to be sure of what we mean in this early stages.
Now when I see that you instead mean more of “administrator” I fully support your idea.
If an administrator is needed due to the workload on everybody, I support the idea of electing one.
I vote also for Gale.

Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies, like http://leparlement.org/test

[top-politics] echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric

lpc1998 — 2006-07-10 18:53:47+0200

like http://leparlement.org/test" However, before I vote for it, I would like to have the views of Gale and Markus on the Magnus proposal. So what say you, Gale and Markus? Best Regards Eric Lim

echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote: > > A standard mbox could also be distributed. > > Would you elaborate on this?

An mbox is the classical format of a mail box. Basically a simple flat file.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Mails are the protocol used in parlement. Basically it’s a mailing list server.

> > There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing > > post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an > > admin will then only be able to remove content. > > Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for the > TOP directory only in your website without having access to the other > directories?

The goal is to allow anybody willing, to be an administrator in a P2P network of servers.

Removing or modifying a post is not a feature, it’s just the logical flaw with a server. With PGP signatures, modifications will be made impossible, but there will still be the possibility to block or remove a post.

The way to go around that flaw is that users will have to be aware of it, and check that their posts are replicated on at least one other server.

> > They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in a > > popup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future, > > but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be > > made anonymous. > > Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List?

Also fully public. And anybody will be able to create and manage any number of electoral list.

Right now this is not possible, everybody is in the global list, and there is no filter yet.

But I’m planning it for the coming weeks. Users coming on the server will see all available lists, and will choose which one they want to follow, and indicate the threshold under which posts will be hidden.

For example a poll asking:

are software patents stupid?

To vote you go on the website, login, and vote, or you reply with a mail containing the string -1, 0 or +1 (the vote has to be at the beginning of a line).

Using the electoral list “TOP” (containing 5 members) the result could be +4.

A visitor can select the TOP list, and indicate a threshold of +2, which means that this poll will be visible. Another visitor using the same list could select a threshold of +5, which means it will not be visible.

An electoral list acts as a moderators group.

> > > 4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?; > > > > There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software > > itself is under the GPL. > > Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shall discuss them when > the time comes.

Right now I believe it’s under the classical copyright laws and treaties, everybody’s post is his own.

echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer)

[top-politics] Re: echarp(1) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric

echarp — 2006-07-10 10:31:36+0200

> > A standard mbox could also be distributed. > > Would you elaborate on this?

An mbox is the classical format of a mail box. Basically a simple flat file.

Mails are the protocol used in parlement. Basically it’s a mailing list server.

Read more… / Lire plus…

The goal is to allow anybody willing, to be an administrator in a P2P network of servers.

The way to go around that flaw is that users will have to be aware of it, and check that their posts are replicated on at least one other server.

Also fully public. And anybody will be able to create and manage any number of electoral list.

Right now this is not possible, everybody is in the global list, and there is no filter yet.

For example a poll asking:

are software patents stupid?

To vote you go on the website, login, and vote, or you reply with a mail containing the string -1, 0 or +1 (the vote has to be at the beginning of a line).

Using the electoral list “TOP” (containing 5 members) the result could be +4.

An electoral list acts as a moderators group.

echarp – (feels nauseous after an evening of pizza and beer)

[top-politics] echarp(1) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric

lpc1998 — 2006-07-08 15:16:55+0200

[Eric]: “You [Magnus] already have 2 votes from Gale and me. Now we need at least one more vote from either [echarp] or [markus] to confirm your admission into the group with voting rights or a casting vote from Gale. Let us follow the new member admission procedures.” [Latest comments from echarp]: “+1 from me too” [Latest comments from Eric]: Excellent! That makes us a group of 5. ____________________________________________________ [Latest comments from echarp]: “…. A standard mbox could also be

distributed." [Latest comments from Eric]: Would you elaborate on this? [Latest comments from echarp]: “There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an admin will then only be able to remove content.” [Latest comments from Eric]: Is it possible to give admin powers to the elected leader of our group for the TOP directory only in your website without having access to the other directories?

[Latest comments from echarp]: “They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in a

popup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future, but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be made anonymous." [Latest comments from Eric]: Thanks. What about the members of the Electoral List? [Eric]: “4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?;” [Latest comments from echarp]: There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software itself is under the GPL." [Latest comments from Eric]: Okay, maybe, it is premature at this stage. We shall discuss them when the time comes. Best Regards Eric Lim

echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:56:58AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:

> Hi [magnus], it is great that you are joining the group.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Definitely great!!!

> You already have 2 votes from Gale and me. Now we need at least one more vote > from either [echarp] or [markus] to confirm your admission into the group with > voting rights or a casting vote from Gale. Let us follow the new member > admission procedures.

+1 from me too

> [magnus]: > “Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies, > like ”http://leparlement.org/test">http://leparlement.org/test" > > We do need a better forum with voting capabilies. Regarding > http://leparlement.org/test, > > 1 does it have an archive for all the messages and how it is accessed?;

They are all accessible right on the web. A standard mbox could also be distributed.

There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an admin will then only be able to remove content.

> 2 Can we provide a hyperlink directly to an individual message in the archive > or where it is located?;

Yes, all posts are accessible with an url like
http://leparlement.org/id, the id is auto generated from the post’s subject, thus it should look rather readable.

> 3 In our case, can the voters on an issue made public?;

They are all public, just click on a result, they should appear in a popup. I don’t plan to have anonymous votes anytime in the future, but a voter’s relationship with his real life identity can/could be made anonymous.

> 4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?; and

There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software itself is under the GPL.

> 5 What are the additional new features the owner or moderator is able to add to > the forum when they are required?

I’m working on avatars right now, for more colorful discussions :)

Next are electoral lists and filters, which would be equivalent to moderators that each user can choose at his convenience.

echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics

[top-politics] Re: magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric

echarp — 2006-07-06 18:21:04+0200

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:56:58AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:

> Hi [magnus], it is great that you are joining the group.

Definitely great!!!

Read more… / Lire plus…

+1 from me too

They are all accessible right on the web. A standard mbox could also be distributed.

There is no way (but for the admin) to remove or modify an existing post. In the future I expect the addition of PGP signatures, an admin will then only be able to remove content.

> 2 Can we provide a hyperlink directly to an individual message in the archive > or where it is located?;

Yes, all posts are accessible with an url like
http://leparlement.org/id, the id is auto generated from the post’s subject, thus it should look rather readable.

> 3 In our case, can the voters on an issue made public?;

> 4 What are the terms and conditions for the use of the website?; and

There are none as of now. I’m open to suggestions. The software itself is under the GPL.

> 5 What are the additional new features the owner or moderator is able to add to > the forum when they are required? I’m working on avatars right now, for more colorful discussions :)

Next are electoral lists and filters, which would be equivalent to moderators that each user can choose at his convenience.

echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics

[top-politics] Re: Question for Eric

illegale — 2006-07-04 14:08:36+0200

So, now it is 5 of us! I am very glad you joined the group :)

Though, as long as you missed the first part of our process, I suppose it might be good if you stated clearly something about your exact goals in the topic what can 4 of us actually do, as long as we are going to use that thread in some of the future issues that are before us. Of course, that is just mere suggestion in order to have these issues in one place, as long as the ship has already sailed.

ATB,
Gale

[top-politics] Re: Question for Eric

Magnus — 2006-07-04 10:53:46+0200

Hello, Eric!

Maybe we could start off in a new, better forum with voting capabilies, like http://leparlement.org/test

[top-politics] Re: Question for Eric

illegale — 2006-06-16 14:02:45+0200

lpc1998 wrote:

> [Eric]: > “Once the discussion co-ordinator is elected, let him present to us 3 issues or matters which he thinks we should deal with now, stating the reasons for his recommendations. We would then decide which issue or matter we want to discuss first or none at all, if members have a better preference. Any member can also propose any issue or matter for discussion, current or for the future. > > > Members shall decide by majority decision which issue or matter shall have precedence for discussion and the direction the group.” > > > [Gale]: > “I like what you are suggesting. Yet, I suppose it is up to any leader > to lead in his own way. If he is successfull, great, if not it is good > to find another solution to solve the problem.” > > For an example, I do not care too much about 50%+1 if there is some > issue those 50%-1 are strongly against. To follow this principle, and > not to follow sense in these subtle situations, group will get appart. > So, principle of veto is what I find pretty important thing in this > very moment. Of course, if too much of veto from one side starts to > harm group, group should go on in another, more compatible formation." > > > [Latest comments from Eric]: > I understand your concerns, but isn’t this also be an experiment in true democracy?

OK. Lets just keep experiments to moments when it is necessary.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> In true democracy, leaders are elected to serve and not to rule. And leadership is earned and not imposed top-down. The true leader is one where his people follow him by choice and not by coersion. I am confident you have what that could make a true leader.

Very kind words, indeed. Thank you. Yet, this is the part where you made your assumptions on not so demanding fields of action as leadership is.

> On the hand, the voters must learn to support their leader of choice so that he could provide them with effective leadership in problem and issue solving. Failing to do so would mean that the voters are not ready for full true democracy or it is not yet a viable option for them. In other words, they are not ready to have the final say which is an integral part of the definition of democracy. > > The bottomline is whether the voters and their leader could work together as an effective team which can solve problems or issues with the collective wisdom and resources.

That is it.

> In a truly democratic decision, there is no conflict between the 50%+1 and the 50%-1. See here for what is meant by a democratic decision: > http://www.tdcommunity.org/viewtopic.php?t=28

OK. Though, every single decision regularly have some who do not like it. That is the though part of the whole process.

> Anyway, let us find our way step by step. When we come to a problem, we shall find a solution for it.

Ad hoc. I agree.
ATB,
Gale

> > Best Regards > Eric Lim > > > > > ~~-0-1974902082-1150397579=:46963 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Google-AttachSize: 2881 > >~~

[Eric]:

“Once the discussion co-ordinator is elected, let him present to us 3 issues or matters which he thinks we should deal with now, stating the reasons for his recommendations. We would then decide which issue or matter we want to discuss first or none at all, if members have a better preference. Any member can also propose any issue or matter for discussion, current or for the future.

Members shall decide by majority decision which issue or matter shall have precedence for discussion and the direction the group.”

[Gale]:

“I like what you are suggesting. Yet, I suppose it is up to any leader
to lead in his own way. If he is successfull, great, if not it is good
to find another solution to solve the problem.”

For an example, I do not care too much about 50%1 if there is some
issue those 50%-1 are strongly against. To follow this principle, and
not to > follow sense in these subtle situations, group will get appart.
So, principle of veto is what I find pretty important thing in this
very moment. Of course, if too much of veto from one side starts to
harm group, group should go on in another, more compatible formation."

[Latest comments from Eric]:

I understand your concerns, but isn’t this also be an experiment in true democracy?

In true democracy, leaders are elected to serve and not to rule. And leadership is earned and not imposed top-down. The true leader is one where his people follow him by choice and not by coersion. I am confident you have what that could make a true leader.

On the hand, the voters must learn to support their leader of choice so that he could provide them with effective leadership in problem and issue solving. Failing to do so would mean that the voters are > not ready for full true democracy or it is not yet a viable option for them. In other words, they are not ready to have the final say which is an integral part of the definition of democracy.

The bottomline is whether the voters and their leader could work together as an effective team which can solve problems or issues with the collective wisdom and resources.

In a truly democratic decision, there is no conflict between the 50%1 and the 50%-1. See here for what is meant by a democratic decision:

http://www.tdcommunity.org/viewtopic.php?t=28

Anyway, let us find our way step by step. When we come to a problem, we shall find a solution for it.

Best Regards

Eric Lim

> —0-1974902082-1150397579=:46963-

> ~~-0-1974902082-1150397579=:46963~~-