Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 02/06 17:57 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 02/06 00:55 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 25/05 11:06 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 24/05 18:57 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 24/05 18:04 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 24/05 16:59 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 19/05 16:08 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 19/05 15:53 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 19/05 15:06 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 19/05 13:22 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
Latest posts
- 02/06 17:57 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 02/06 00:55 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 25/05 11:06 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 24/05 18:57 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 24/05 18:04 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 24/05 16:59 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 19/05 16:08 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 19/05 15:53 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 19/05 15:06 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
- 19/05 13:22 +1 Re: Let TOP begins
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Let TOP begins
-
Hello all,
Personally I see no need at all to add any organised authority to this mailinglist initiative, what problems do we have to resolve ?
If the agenda has changed for this group to be something more than a common place to share concepts, ideas and suggestions then that should probably be defined closer before taking any actions.
Also i see no need for any leaders, but fun to see some people trying to consolidate some power by introducing undefined roles :)
Anyway should stop talking and do some coding some day, like Emmanuel that seems to be the only one of us that actually released some code recently.
Pether
+1
-
I agree with Pether even if I’m flattered that my name was mentioned above..
I see no need for a leader, this is the old way of thinking as I see on democracy.
Maybe, maybe there is a need for a moderator but probably not as long as we are 5 to 10 deabters like now.
What I advocate is a decision making system.
This system we should trust to take all important decisions. You know that the system I have in mind is AD..
In the AD-party today, the formal leader is only have a very small administrative role against the authorities. (before we registered as a real party we didn’t have any leader, the decisionsmaking system together with a wiki and later a forum run everything automatically.) I beleive very much in no personal power, this will only lead to corruption and personal wars sooner or later. It happens all the time you see, in all kinds of organizations.So, instead of which leader, we should discuss what decision making system we shall use..
+1
-
MG wrote:
> I agree with Pether even if I’m flattered that my name was mentioned > above.. > I see no need for a leader, this is the old way of thinking as I see on > democracy.
Hmh. We all lead sometimes. I find concept of democracy as a concept of alock. There is no bird strong enough to lead all the flock all the journey, yet the flock needs leaders, so they excange. When one gets tired, here comes another one.
> Maybe, maybe there is a need for a moderator but probably not as long > as we are 5 to 10 deabters like now. > What I advocate is a decision making system.
You mean, the procedure? OK, I do agree with you. These two things are complementary.
> This system we should trust to take all important decisions. > You know that the system I have in mind is AD.. > In the AD-party today, the formal leader is only have a very small > administrative role against the authorities. (before we registered as a > real party we didn’t have any leader, the decisionsmaking system > together with a wiki and later a forum run everything automatically.) > I beleive very much in no personal power, this will only lead to > corruption and personal wars sooner or later. It happens all the time > you see, in all kinds of organizations.
Do you think it would be possible sometimes or in two months? If you are talking about sometimes, I have to say that TOP is something I find the good fight against corruption. Though, as long as there is no political organisation that has any power based on TOP, this is only asumption.
About personal power. What is the origin of the any power if it is not in us as of the persons, if I get you correctly?
Nevertheless, if you get choosed as a leader, I can hardly imagine that you get corrupted and keep my support, at least I can hardly imagine that in this moment and in several months period.
> So, instead of which leader, we should discuss what decision making > system we shall use.
OK. If you really think it is the way, it is the best thing to try it. See how many people will acknowledge the path and create result of that path.
Me personaly have no problem with any procedure as long as the organisation that relies on it is the organisation I do trust to. And it is not the procude that makes me trust to organisation, but people. Yet, that is the way I see.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
>Hmh. We all lead sometimes. I find concept of democracy as a concept of alock. There is no bird strong enough to lead all the flock all the journey, yet the flock needs leaders, so they excange. When one gets tired, here comes another one.
-Nothing wrong with that. But this is the natural leader, not the formal.
In some groups the natural leader is more important than the formal and then the ideal is ofcourse that they are the same person. But in a more democratic and equal group, the leader is not so important. In fact in a very well working group, everbody takes it’s responsabilites anyway, without any having to decide upon them. Even the quite young and unexperiense can be trained to take actions if he sees good response.
As I wrote, maybe there will be ned for leader later but I can’t see it now, what would the first task for a leader be as you see it, now?>Do you think it would be possible sometimes or in two months? If you are talking about sometimes, I have to say that TOP is something I find
the good fight against corruption. Though, as long as there is no political organisation that has any power based on TOP, this is only asumption.
-That’s up to the programmers to answer. But the AD-principles are applicable in a manual way if the users are limited, and they are.
We could also set up a fixed voting time, such as one month or so. During this time it is up for debate and then the verdict for the proposals are to come.>About personal power. What is the origin of the any power if it is not in us as of the persons, if I get you correctly?
Nevertheless, if you get choosed as a leader, I can hardly imagine that
you get corrupted and keep my support, at least I can hardly imagine that in this moment and in several months period.
> Maybe not ;-) But what is the purpose to start using a system that in hands of wrong leaders for large groups with heavy impact (us tomorrow;-) can be misruled? If the final goal is better democracy the democratic process itself has to be good enough and be to be improved gradually.
>OK. If you really think it is the way, it is the best thing to try it. See how many people will acknowledge the path and create result of that
path.
Me personaly have no problem with any procedure as long as the organisation that relies on it is the organisation I do trust to. And it is not the procude that makes me trust to organisation, but people. Yet, that is the way I see.
-It is a big step to accept the fact of being ruled by the majority.. I have sometimes problems myself when I meet and have to debate with others who, as I see it has totally wrong ideas or just don’t get the big picture.
Nevertheless, by accepting it, they can not do anything else than put forward strong arguments from their side as well as I can. Best argument wins, judged by the majority.
In order to control what is able to vote about and how, there ofcourse need to be strong statutes/constitution.
To me it’s obvoius but even this I have been forced to defend.. My proposal is to decide for a voting system and then start with a constitution.If this new organisation will develop to something that anyone of can’t accept despite good arguments, we ofcourse are free to leave without any further fights.
Due to this it is only a good constituion as we, the current members see it, that has to be developed.
The constitution may be possible to change later but on the other hand, if it’s found totally out-aged nothing stops us or anyone else to start a new organization that would gain more members than the old’one wich would be marginalized sooner or later.
This I say to stress that the exact wording of the constitution is important but still can be quite simple in the beginning. It can more or less locked with the poss. to add amendmensts later. In this way we could create a constituiton today without too much debates and continously improve it when we see need to.As I see it, the above is more important than if I trust all members currently here.
By some basic rules and principles I feel confident that the group can advance in a good pace without too much struggle.
That we have good personalities here is ofcourse also important, can anyone here tell a name that he thinks should be here for the task but isn’t for the moment?
In this I have confidence also.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >Hmh. We all lead sometimes. I find concept of democracy as a concept of > alock. There is no bird strong enough to lead all the flock all the > journey, yet the flock needs leaders, so they excange. When one gets > tired, here comes another one. > > -Nothing wrong with that. But this is the natural leader, not the > formal.
I do understand. It is the question of formalisation. Do we need it or not? Yet, I am glad to notice that by this topic some people acknowledged me in some manner. This gives me some certainty that if I start something, some would probably follow. That is it. That is all as long as there are no obligations nor restrictions in this moment. I suppose that pageranking would matter the same is this sort of non rigid formalisation.
> In some groups the natural leader is more important than the formal and > then the ideal is ofcourse that they are the same person. > But in a more democratic and equal group, the leader is not so > important. > In fact in a very well working group, everbody takes it’s > responsabilites anyway, without any having to decide upon them. > Even the quite young and unexperiense can be trained to take actions if > he sees good response. > As I wrote, maybe there will be ned for leader later but I can’t see it > now, what would the first task for a leader be as you see it, now?
So, you do not need leader? Some of us need some change, some thing that will make this list grows, not dies as CICDD or many others before us died. That change might not be choose of a person who will lead for a while, but something else. You propose we all create some new system of decision making. Yet, there is the path to come up there, to legitimate it. There I do not have much enthusiasm that formalisation of procedures can do much if we do not even know what do we actually want with these procedures. Maybe it is similar thing to choosing leader. Natural stuff and formal stuff. Natural stuff is better, formal stuff is in some manner easier thanks to its certainty
What leader should do IMO? He should recapitulate this all process, see the grounds and interests of each one of us, see what we can do with it and propose the furter actions based on it. OK, this is not the function of leader, nut function of all of us where leader eliminates buzz and afraidness that what we do wont matter as long as it wont be accepted by the group (dismoralisation of the group) Anyway, I am willing to start this thing without any acknowlegment as long as I see it could help us a bit on our way ahead.
> >Do you think it would be possible sometimes or in two months? If you > are talking about sometimes, I have to say that TOP is something I find > > the good fight against corruption. Though, as long as there is no > political organisation that has any power based on TOP, this is only > asumption. > > -That’s up to the programmers to answer. > But the AD-principles are applicable in a manual way if the users are > limited, and they are. > We could also set up a fixed voting time, such as one month or so. > During this time it is up for debate and then the verdict for the > proposals are to come.
OK.
> >About personal power. What is the origin of the any power if it is not > in us as of the persons, if I get you correctly? > > Nevertheless, if you get choosed as a leader, I can hardly imagine that > > you get corrupted and keep my support, at least I can hardly imagine > that in this moment and in several months period. > > > Maybe not ;-) But what is the purpose to start using a system that in hands of wrong leaders for large groups with heavy impact (us tomorrow;-) can be misruled?
What I do see is that TOP can stand only at ad hoc principles. No rigid stuff as long as dynamcis of info makes any such attempt be a burden not a help. So, this leaders stuff I see as ad hoc stuff. Nothing more, nothing less. If I realise we do not need it any more, or that we need some transformations, I will propose it. If the arguments are good I believe they will be acknowledged. If they wont be acknowledged and if I find this is completely wrong, or just wrong enough to question the whole point, I will step out of it. That is it. Any moment I can do it, actually. I can step out just because, yet if I do such a thing I suppose my reputation will hurth.
> If the final goal is better democracy the democratic process itself has > to be good enough and be to be improved gradually.
See no problem with that.
> >OK. If you really think it is the way, it is the best thing to try it. > See how many people will acknowledge the path and create result of that > > path. > > Me personaly have no problem with any procedure as long as the > organisation that relies on it is the organisation I do trust to. And > it is not the procude that makes me trust to organisation, but people. > Yet, that is the way I see. > > -It is a big step to accept the fact of being ruled by the majority..
Oh no. It is not the majority, but the people I do trust. If I loose the trust, I will step out. That is all. Though, I have to explain why do I have trust enough to be part of it. We do not know each others too much, yet what I can notice is that there is no interested inner groups up there, but network where each members wants to realise his interest through the whole group. It is common good that is between our particular interests and I do belive we are smart enough to articulate some parts of it that will have common acknowledgment. That is enough for me. At least in this very moment. If I notice some strange things start happening, maybe I will change my mind legitimaly.
> I have sometimes problems myself when I meet and have to debate with > others who, as I see it has totally wrong ideas or just don’t get the > big picture. > Nevertheless, by accepting it, they can not do anything else than put > forward strong arguments from their side as well as I can. > Best argument wins, judged by the majority. > In order to control what is able to vote about and how, there ofcourse > need to be strong statutes/constitution. > To me it’s obvoius but even this I have been forced to defend.. > My proposal is to decide for a voting system and then start with a > constitution.
When you say voting system, suppose you think procedure of decision making. Right? I have to ask you this, to loose some eventual misunderstanding. Though, what about constitution? What answers do we get out of it? Are they concrete, exact? What is the power of it? What is the sense of it?
> If this new organisation will develop to something that anyone of can’t > accept despite good arguments, we ofcourse are free to leave without > any further fights. > Due to this it is only a good constituion as we, the current members > see it, that has to be developed. > The constitution may be possible to change later but on the other hand, > if it’s found totally out-aged nothing stops us or anyone else to start > a new organization that would gain more members than the old’one wich > would be marginalized sooner or later. > This I say to stress that the exact wording of the constitution is > important but still can be quite simple in the beginning. It can more > or less locked with the poss. to add amendmensts later. > In this way we could create a constituiton today without too much > debates and continously improve it when we see need to.
Hmh. In Tiaktiv we have statut that we do not obey at all. It is just formality for the state. On the other hand we have non formal “procedure of action” and “strategy” documents that help us coordinate our individual efforts and show the others what we are going to do by that procedure. So, is this the way you are looking for or? If evetnually yes, there is a “How to improve communication on the list” document. It is based on commonly articulated need. What I see is that when we have commonly articualated need and create acknowledged solution, that solution has strong legitimation which is necessary. When we come up to new problems, we find new solutions and so on and so on. Is this a good way for creation of constitution/statues or do you have something different in mind? There is one more thing to be noticed up there. I am not too much interested in abstracions with no exact ground in any matter, as long as there is no use of it I can notice. Am I eventually wrong about it? What do you think?
> As I see it, the above is more important than if I trust all members > currently here.
OK. Yet. Interpretation of any constitution is in the hands of men who might be corrupted for an instance. Or just dumb and not willing to acknowledge soemthign you find be crucial. If that happens, there is no constitution that can help you out. That is the same story of forman and nonformal leaders. Formalitiy is not big thing if there are no people who will make it living in a manner we desire them to be living.
Or let me ask you one thing. If there where 20 dumbheads who say yeah, yeah, yeah and in the same time do plenty of shitty stuff. Would you acknowledge that majority? I would not. And I wont not as long as I can choose.
> By some basic rules and principles I feel confident that the group can > advance in a good pace without too much struggle. > That we have good personalities here is ofcourse also important, can > anyone here tell a name that he thinks should be here for the task but > isn’t for the moment? > In this I have confidence also.
I do not understand this. Can you expain it to me? ATB,
Gale
+1
-
>So, you do not need leader? Some of us need some change, some thing that will make this list grows, not dies as CICDD or many others before
us died. That change might not be choose of a person who will lead for a while, but something else. You propose we all create some new system of decision making. Yet, there is the path to come up there, to legitimate it. There I do not have much enthusiasm that formalisation of procedures can do much if we do not even know what do we actually want with these procedures. Maybe it is similar thing to choosing leader. Natural stuff and formal stuff. Natural stuff is better, formal
stuff is in some manner easier thanks to its certainty
-Well, my vision short sighted is that once we are able to take decisions, the endless discussions will be over.
Instead, only real actions will be the important. This will lead to progress and that will lead to more attraction from outside. Right now notheing happens here so why should more than teh most visionary hang around here?
We have to take from there.>What leader should do IMO? He should recapitulate this all process, see the grounds and interests of each one of us, see what we can do with it
and propose the furter actions based on it. OK, this is not the function of leader, nut function of all of us where leader eliminates buzz and afraidness that what we do wont matter as long as it wont be accepted by the group (dismoralisation of the group) Anyway, I am willing to start this thing without any acknowlegment as long as I see it could help us a bit on our way ahead.
-Nothing stops that we have one or more natural leaders. Thats all we need to do what you describe here, and maybe we already are there.
>What I do see is that TOP can stand only at ad hoc principles. No rigid stuff as long as dynamcis of info makes any such attempt be a burden not a help. So, this leaders stuff I see as ad hoc stuff. Nothing more,
nothing less. If I realise we do not need it any more, or that we need some transformations, I will propose it. If the arguments are good I believe they will be acknowledged. If they wont be acknowledged and if I find this is completely wrong, or just wrong enough to question the whole point, I will step out of it. That is it. Any moment I can do it,
actually. I can step out just because, yet if I do such a thing I suppose my reputation will hurth.
-If we consider the leaders issue solved by natural leaders already, we should focus in the issues.
And exatly as you, I will be part of it as long as nothing unacceptable happens and I see the benefit of it.
I believe in it right now at least. If the action still will remain almost zero for many weeks, I and AD will try other measures, like “rent a cooder” or something else.>So, is this the way you are looking for or? If evetnually yes, there is a “How to improve communication on the list” document. It is based on commonly articulated need. What I see is that when we have commonly articualated need and create acknowledged solution, that solution has strong legitimation which is necessary. When we come up to new problems, we find new solutions and so on and so
on. Is this a good way for creation of constitution/statues or do you have something different in mind? There is one more thing to be noticed
up there. I am not too much interested in abstracions with no exact ground in any matter, as long as there is no use of it I can notice. Am
I eventually wrong about it? What do you think?
-It’s very basic really, a constitution saying: What are the goals, how we take decisions, what is unacceptable and who are allowed as members. I don’t see need for much more in this stage.
>OK. Yet. Interpretation of any constitution is in the hands of men who might be corrupted for an instance. Or just dumb and not willing to acknowledge soemthign you find be crucial. If that happens, there is no
constitution that can help you out. That is the same story of forman and nonformal leaders. Formalitiy is not big thing if there are no people who will make it living in a manner we desire them to be living.
-Well, who says that interpretation of const- shall be carried out by a few?
All members should as I see it.
There is one thing that the cont. can help with even if all members voing are dumb or corrupted.
That is the parts that are locked. Or at least very difficult to change.
As I see it there is no problem having locked §:s in a constitution as long as you once have agreed on them and it is possible to create a new organization without these locks ultimately.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >So, you do not need leader? Some of us need some change, some thing > that will make this list grows, not dies as CICDD or many others before > > us died. That change might not be choose of a person who will lead for > a while, but something else. You propose we all create some new system > of decision making. Yet, there is the path to come up there, to > legitimate it. There I do not have much enthusiasm that formalisation > of procedures can do much if we do not even know what do we actually > want with these procedures. Maybe it is similar thing to choosing > leader. Natural stuff and formal stuff. Natural stuff is better, formal > stuff is in some manner easier thanks to its certainty > > -Well, my vision short sighted is that once we are able to take > decisions, the endless discussions will be over.
But we can do decision right now. Of course, in our name only. Yet did any group decision happened yet? Yes. When we moved to google. Any other? No. Why is that so? Is there any interest actually for making group decisions?
> Instead, only real actions will be the important. This will lead to > progress and that will lead to more attraction from outside. > Right now notheing happens here so why should more than teh most > visionary hang around here? > We have to take from there. > > >What leader should do IMO? He should recapitulate this all process, see > the grounds and interests of each one of us, see what we can do with it > > and propose the furter actions based on it. OK, this is not the > function of leader, nut function of all of us where leader eliminates > buzz and afraidness that what we do wont matter as long as it wont be > accepted by the group (dismoralisation of the group) Anyway, I am > willing to start this thing without any acknowlegment as long as I see > it could help us a bit on our way ahead. > > -Nothing stops that we have one or more natural leaders. Thats all we > need to do what you describe here, and maybe we already are there.
It commes pretty bad to promote articulation of the group leader in this moment as long as I am proposed to. So, please let me step down from any chance of being group leader and let me propose Eric as long as he is organised pall which is good. One more thing I do like with Eric. He does not propose any votng system.
OK. Now it is more easy to talk about leaders. What is what I find be good with such articualtaion? We reduce possibilitiy of “leader only in his eyes effect” which is rather common thing if there is no articulated definition that removes such possibility. If we say Eric, please lead us, than we will know that what Eric does is important for all of us getting us focused on stuff that becomes group relevant stuff.
In this moment we all push in some way and that is not gooooood. Though, as long as there is no point of creating leader on the ground of the people who do not need him, I like the idea of sub leader that will at least get some moment of higher group relevance which is good start.
>What I do see is that TOP can stand only at ad hoc principles. Norigid > stuff as long as dynamcis of info makes any such attempt be a burden > not a help. So, this leaders stuff I see as ad hoc stuff. Nothing more, > > nothing less. If I realise we do not need it any more, or that we need > some transformations, I will propose it. If the arguments are good I > believe they will be acknowledged. If they wont be acknowledged and if > I find this is completely wrong, or just wrong enough to question the > whole point, I will step out of it. That is it. Any moment I can do it, > > actually. I can step out just because, yet if I do such a thing I > suppose my reputation will hurth. > > -If we consider the leaders issue solved by natural leaders already, we > should focus in the issues.
Though, is issue of natural leader solved if we are not coordinated and commonly acknowledged? If we use this technique or Eric, we can make this process goes faster. I am not sure it is good thing to make it go faster, yet I have no reason to be afraid of it in this moment. Only thing I want here is that we ensure flock concept be realised in a manner of giving everybody chance of showing his possibilities. I find this be fair and good thing.
> And exatly as you, I will be part of it as long as nothing unacceptable > happens and I see the benefit of it. > I believe in it right now at least. If the action still will remain > almost zero for many weeks, I and AD will try other measures, like > “rent a cooder” or something else.
OK.
> >So, is this the way you are looking for or? If > evetnually yes, there is a “How to improve communication on the list” > document. It is based on commonly articulated need. What I see is that > when we have commonly articualated need and create acknowledged > solution, that solution has strong legitimation which is necessary. > When we come up to new problems, we find new solutions and so on and so > > on. Is this a good way for creation of constitution/statues or do you > have something different in mind? There is one more thing to be noticed > > up there. I am not too much interested in abstracions with no exact > ground in any matter, as long as there is no use of it I can notice. Am > > I eventually wrong about it? What do you think? > > -It’s very basic really, a constitution saying: What are the goals, how > we take decisions, what is unacceptable and who are allowed as members. > I don’t see need for much more in this stage.
That is good. Though, I am not for too rigid stuff as long as open systems do not stand any formality as grounded as long as its imperfection commes up too fast to work that way. Anyway, it is not the stuff that matters in this moment, just a thought.
> >OK. Yet. Interpretation of any constitution is in the hands of men who > might be corrupted for an instance. Or just dumb and not willing to > acknowledge soemthign you find be crucial. If that happens, there is no > > constitution that can help you out. That is the same story of forman > and nonformal leaders. Formalitiy is not big thing if there are no > people who will make it living in a manner we desire them to be living. > > >
Well, who says that interpretation of constshall be carried out by a > few?You misinterpreted me. I am talking about organisation thatsomehow gathrs dumb and not willing to acknowledge plain logic people that can go against any written word making and constitution be not the essential part, but the people.
> All members should as I see it. > There is one thing that the cont. can help with even if all members > voing are dumb or corrupted. > That is the parts that are locked. Or at least very difficult to > change. > As I see it there is no problem having locked §:s in a constitution as > long as you once have agreed on them and it is possible to create a new > organization without these locks ultimately.
OK.
ATB;
Gale
+1
-
>No. Why is that so? Is there any interest actually for making group decisions?
I hope so. Like what next step should be. Without progress all of us will loose interest.
>We reduce possibilitiy of “leader only in his eyes effect” which is rather common thing if there is no articulated definition that removes such possibility.
-OK, might be a problem until the democratic process has begun. Once a decision system is in place, few will see themselves as leaders. If so, they are probably informal leaders with support. I still don’t see so big need for pointing out at the moment.
>That is good. Though, I am not for too rigid stuff as long as open systems do not stand any formality as grounded as long as its imperfection commes up too fast to work that way. Anyway, it is not the
stuff that matters in this moment, just a thought.
-OK, so one action needed now is to write a simple constitution.
>>
Well, who says that interpretation of constshall be carried out by a > few?You misinterpreted me. I am talking about organisation thatsomehow gathrs dumb and not willing to acknowledge plain logic people that can go against any written word making and constitution be not the essential part, but the people.
-OK, but still, a simple and at the start accepted constitution can function under even these circumstances.
Once the locked rules are questioned, the solution would be to leave and form a new organization instead of fighting against opponents inside the old. This will give more piece than the possibility to question everything all the time. Ask me, I have seen it.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >No. Why is that so? Is there any interest actually for making > group decisions? > > I hope so. Like what next step should be. Without progress all of us > will loose interest. > > >We reduce possibilitiy of “leader only in > his eyes effect” which is rather common thing if there is no > articulated definition that removes such possibility. > > -OK, might be a problem until the democratic process has begun. > Once a decision system is in place, few will see themselves as leaders. > If so, they are probably informal leaders with support. > I still don’t see so big need for pointing out at the moment.
You do not need a leader, thats fine. Those who need him, let them have one.
> >That is good. Though, I am not for too rigid stuff as long as open > systems do not stand any formality as grounded as long as its > imperfection commes up too fast to work that way. Anyway, it is not the > > stuff that matters in this moment, just a thought. > > -OK, so one action needed now is to write a simple constitution.
OK. Yet I would prefere procedures be the firt stuff within it.
> >>
Well, who says that interpretation of constshall be carried out by a > > few? > > You misinterpreted me. I am talking about organisation thatsomehow > gathrs dumb and not willing to acknowledge plain logic people that can > go against any written word making and constitution be not the > essential part, but the people. > > -OK, but still, a simple and at the start accepted constitution can > function under even these circumstances. > Once the locked rules are questioned, the solution would be to leave > and form a new organization instead of fighting against opponents > inside the old.We had a simple principle out there. If you work and enable organisation move forward, you have the right to question methods. In that manner we move forward instead of rechecking because of desire to recheck.
> This will give more piece than the possibility to > question everything all the time. Ask me, I have seen it.
I suppose we are wise enough not to get into stuff because of the stuff circles. If not, those who are above it will create successfull organisation and profit.
ATB,.
Gale
+1
-
>You do not need a leader, thats fine. Those who need him, let them have one.
-Maybe, no problem with me.
>OK. Yet I would prefere procedures be the firt stuff within it.
-Ofcourse, procedures like that we are deciding by one man, one vote and similar should be there.
Amendments are always possible.>We had a simple principle out there. If you work and enable organisation move forward, you have the right to question methods. In that manner we move forward instead of rechecking because of desire to recheck
-I don’t follow, ofcourse most thing should be able to question but for some this wil be the only thing they will do. (potentially, I haven’t seen it here yet though which is good).
The qustion is how much effort we are ready to put into arguing about one man one vote for instance.
Or if there really shall be total transparency within this group etc. etc. in infinity.>I suppose we are wise enough not to get into stuff because of the stuff circles. If not, those who are above it will create successfull organisation and profit.
-Thats really what I say, if the group will be full of lunies later, nothing stops the non lunies to form a new group or to let them do so. But if all is open to discussion and potential change it can destroy a working group.
Then I prefer that the ones questioning very basic rules leave and form their own group rather than spending their and our energy and time fighting.
If a major error exists in our groups constitution, the new group will take over eventually according Darwins theory. >
+1
-
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:06:23PM -0000, MG wrote:
> The qustion is how much effort we are ready to put into arguing about > one man one vote for instance. > Or if there really shall be total transparency within this group etc. > etc. in infinity.
We do need to define the very very basic principles that make something democratic or not.
One man one vote for example, rule of the majority is another one, same with the possibility to change your mind (even if it requires a full term for that…).
>> I suppose we are wise enough not to get into stuff because of the >> stuff circles. If not, those who are above it will create successfull >> organisation and profit. > > Thats really what I say, if the group will be full of lunies later, > nothing stops the non lunies to form a new group or to let them do so. > But if all is open to discussion and potential change it can destroy a > working group.
There is no simple solution, I’ve seen associations being destroyed by another association whose members entered “en masse” and obtained right away the majority.
Here are a few steps we could use, well, maybe not today, but sometimes:
- anybody can vote
- results are tabulated against an electoral list
- being on that electoral list is not automatic (important!)
- one can ask to be registered
- other voters can accept/propose or refuse this registration
The general principle should be to refuse people who didn’t contribute somehow, but it’s up to the group really.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>There is no simple solution, I’ve seen associations being destroyed by another association whose members entered “en masse” and obtained right
away the majority.
Here are a few steps we could use, well, maybe not today, but sometimes:
- anybody can vote
- results are tabulated against an electoral list
- being on that electoral list is not automatic (important!)
- one can ask to be registered
- other voters can accept/propose or refuse this registration
The general principle should be to refuse people who didn’t contribute somehow, but it’s up to the group really.
-The right to be on the electors list (would prefer to call it the voter list..)should be open.
But, the constituion can be used to stop both lunies and evil associations.
If we have a constitution with some principles much is won. To accpet new voters would be a way, however this is only a problem in the start, onece we are up on say 50 voters, I’d say it’s very unlikely that a evil association would enter jsut to control the votings. And would it happen, nothing stops us to leave and form another, free association.
The rule of stop the one who didn’t contributed from the start is a bad one if you need more memebrs…
+1
-
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 02:59:03PM -0000, MG wrote:
> -The right to be on the electors list (would prefer to call it the > voter list..)should be open.
What is the current term used in official elections? Is it not “electoral list” ?
> But, the constituion can be used to stop both lunies and evil > associations.
I disagree, a constitution can only block some things, if the lunies are numerous enough, they can even change the constitution!
> To accpet new voters would be a way, however this is only a problem in > the start, onece we are up on say 50 voters, I’d say it’s very > unlikely that a evil association would enter jsut to control the > votings.
I’ve seen it happen in larger groups. In fact there is now a political party which is being taken over using something like that: sarkozy is encouraging people to join his party, so much so that he is now the sole leader considering every body joins for him.
(great strategy on his part)
> And would it happen, nothing stops us to leave and form another, free > association.
Today there are not much assets controlled by the group, but in the case of that party for example, much money and power is being taken over that way.
> The rule of stop the one who didn’t contributed from the start is a > bad one if you need more memebrs…
It doesn’t block new membership, it does not even block votes, just they are not counted (ok, a slight difference, but of importance).
Of course this is not of much importance today in our group. But electoral lists are in general a huge matters.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
>What is the current term used in official elections? Is it not “electoral list” ? -Well, but if we where voting about issues and not electing reps. only?
> But, the constituion can be used to stop both lunies and evil > associations.
>I disagree, a constitution can only block some things, if the lunies are numerous enough, they can even change the constitution!
-No, we can lock oer make some parts slow or difficult to change, that’s a strategy I like. If something becomes totally atiqued and stops further development there is alway the option to form a new organization without that specific § even if I find it unlikely if we lock the right §:s.
> To accpet new voters would be a way, however this is only a problem in > the start, onece we are up on say 50 voters, I’d say it’s very > unlikely that a evil association would enter jsut to control the > votings.
I’ve seen it happen in larger groups. In fact there is now a political party which is being taken over using something like that: sarkozy is encouraging people to join his party, so much so that he is now the sole
leader considering every body joins for him.(great strategy on his part)
-There is a risk, but it would be higher in a real political party with some mandate in a parliament. Like for us in AD. But we have put a lot of work into our constitution and I’m not very concerned for the next 5 years or so.
>> And would it happen, nothing stops us to leave and form another, free > association.
>Today there are not much assets controlled by the group, but in the case of that party for example, much money and power is being taken over that
way.-But for this group it could mean nothing as long as we are poor.. Our goal is open soft too so not so much to win here.
>> The rule of stop the one who didn’t contributed from the start is a > bad one if you need more memebrs…
>It doesn’t block new membership, it does not even block votes, just they are not counted (ok, a slight difference, but of importance).
-Who’d like to be a member and to contibute if he have no influence?
>Of course this is not of much importance today in our group. But electoral lists are in general a huge matters.
-Ofcourse we should have all voters in order and be able to control that no one are having more than one vote and that we know who the voters are in a reasonble way.
Still, we will never write laws here, never convict fellons etc etc, just cooperate for a better world.
Don’t se so big risks really.There is more risk in that people are getting tired of endless debates, shit trowing etc. and cease or dissapear.
I have seen it. Gale have seen it.
+1
-
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:57:10PM -0000, MG wrote:
> > It doesn’t block new membership, it does not even block votes, just > > they are not counted (ok, a slight difference, but of importance). > > -Who’d like to be a member and to contibute if he have no influence?
Free speech. And many will use it to express themselves and try to spread their ideas.
> > Of course this is not of much importance today in our group. But > > electoral lists are in general a huge matters. > > -Ofcourse we should have all voters in order and be able to control > that no one are having more than one vote and that we know who the > voters are in a reasonble way.
Security, this is the most important feature in a political system. And a reason why transparency is so important.
> Still, we will never write laws here, never convict fellons etc etc, > just cooperate for a better world. > Don’t se so big risks really. > > There is more risk in that people are getting tired of endless debates, > shit trowing etc. and cease or dissapear. > I have seen it. Gale have seen it.
I agree
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:57:10PM -0000, MG wrote: > > > It doesn’t block new membership, it does not even block votes, just > > > they are not counted (ok, a slight difference, but of importance). > > > > -Who’d like to be a member and to contibute if he have no influence? > > Free speech. And many will use it to express themselves and try to > spread their ideas.
I am not sure I do understand what is the problem you discuss about, so I willl mention something that might be not related to it if I got you wrong.
When we run TOP this means every single part of the world can have its influence to projects of such organisation. What makes somebody be interested to be exact part are bilateral benefits. For an example; voting power, money, brand, etc.
To give an example of Tiaktiv, at least fictional one we had. Those who belong to Tiaktiv make decision on a base of concensus. In the same time, they have some obliagations towards Tiaktiv, obligations other people do not have, which give them legitimation in the eyes of the others to make decisions with no big questioning.
In the same time, other non-Tiaktiv parts regularly help Tiaktiv in many levels, not just in idea promotion, yet when we make decisions nobody has a problem if we decide something.
> > > > Of course this is not of much importance today in our group. But > > > electoral lists are in general a huge matters. > > > > -Ofcourse we should have all voters in order and be able to control > > that no one are having more than one vote and that we know who the > > voters are in a reasonble way. > > Security, this is the most important feature in a political system. And > a reason why transparency is so important.
Agreed.
> > Still, we will never write laws here, never convict fellons etc etc, > > just cooperate for a better world. > > Don’t se so big risks really. > > > > There is more risk in that people are getting tired of endless debates, > > shit trowing etc. and cease or dissapear. > > I have seen it. Gale have seen it. > > I agree
So, lets work!
ATB,
Gale> > echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>> -Who’d like to be a member and to contibute if he have no influence?
>Free speech. And many will use it to express themselves and try to spread their ideas.
-Well, the blogs are already here. We need something more.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-