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
- 11/07 13:20 +3 Re: echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 11/07 12:42 +2 Re: echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 06/07 17:56 +2 magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 10/07 18:53 +1 echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 10/07 10:31 +1 Re: echarp(1) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 08/07 15:16 +1 echarp(1) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 06/07 18:21 +1 Re: magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 04/07 14:08 +1 Re: Question for Eric
- 04/07 10:53 +1 Re: Question for Eric
- 16/06 14:02 +1 Re: Question for Eric
Latest posts
- 11/07 13:20 +3 Re: echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 11/07 12:42 +2 Re: echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 10/07 18:53 +1 echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 10/07 10:31 +1 Re: echarp(1) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 08/07 15:16 +1 echarp(1) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 06/07 18:21 +1 Re: magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 06/07 17:56 +2 magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 04/07 14:08 +1 Re: Question for Eric
- 04/07 10:53 +1 Re: Question for Eric
- 16/06 14:02 +1 Re: Question for Eric
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Question for Eric
-
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/897
Hey Eric!
How is it going on? I havent seen you lately on top-politics, I hope it is not due to eventual dissapointment in group. I do understand we make many, many mistakes, that we are far from profesional and succesfull in this very time.
Yet, what I see up there is several individuals willing to join forces, willing to create community and to act as a community, stuff every single one of us needs in a process of empowerment of his own ideas.
Nevertheless, I am contacting you due to partial interest you might find interesting. We (Magnus, Emmanuel, Markus and I) did agree to create some site that would enable TOP politics and system plurality.
This is what I find to be one thing. Before that part, I suppose we should more clearly define parts we distint to other world initatives, what makes us potentially relevant. In this very time it is actually believing in political movement due to global informatisation of political process. Second thing is of course, TOP.
More clearly we define these things, more of us support them creating political capital, more easy we will penetrate with these ideas to others. Sharing these ideas might eventually spread the base for our progresive thoughts every single initiative needs to become relevant.
So, as long as I can notice this articualtion part is something you are pretty familiar too, I would really be glad if you eventually decide to join us up in this part. Second thing I find important with your character is systematic aproach which is higly desired thing in these abstract spheres.
Me personally am willing to support you completely in this part of the group project due to your abilites, so please think about this possibility.
I hope you will give it one more chance :-)
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
Hi Gale, thank you, I am OK.
Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a group to develop its organizational structures based on some ideas I proposed last year. Those ideas met with strong objections at the time they were proposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposed them could not come up with better alternatives and the group could not move forward.
I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top-politics to respond to my request to notify the rest of the members on the proposal to create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal could determine the number of members who could participate in group’s initiatives, apart from the individual initatives.
I am also having difficulties with the google archive with long threads broken up into pieces with some of them missing making conversations impossible to follow. If you guys can find a better site, that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have control of the site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want the group to develop into a community. We cannot afford to have the site exclusively in the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion of their individual initiatives or unable to look after group interests.
Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled by someone who claims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth and anyone who disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down. He is obviously evangelizing a religion.
As individuals, we are no match against the forces set against us in our promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personal initiatives and ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives that would eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community that truly upholds democratic principles and ideals.
Best Regards
Eric Lim
illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/897
Hey Eric!
How is it going on? I havent seen you lately on top-politics, I hope it is not due to eventual dissapointment in group. I do understand we make many, many mistakes, that we are far from profesional and succesfull in this very time.
Yet, what I see up there is several individuals willing to join forces, willing to create community and to act as a community, stuff every single one of us needs in a process of empowerment of his own ideas.
Nevertheless, I am contacting you due to partial interest you might find interesting. We (Magnus, Emmanuel, Markus and I) did agree to create some site that would enable TOP politics and system plurality.
This is what I find to be one thing. Before that part, I suppose we should more clearly define parts we distint to other world initatives, what makes us potentially relevant. In this very time it is actually believing in political movement due to global informatisation of political process. Second thing is of course, TOP.
More clearly we define these things, more of us support them creating political capital, more easy we will penetrate with these ideas to others. Sharing these ideas might eventually spread the base for our progresive thoughts every single initiative needs to become relevant.
So, as long as I can notice this articualtion part is something you are pretty familiar too, I would really be glad if you eventually decide to join us up in this part. Second thing I find important with your character is systematic aproach which is higly desired thing in these abstract spheres.
Me personally am willing to support you completely in this part of the group project due to your abilites, so please think about this possibility.
I hope you will give it one more chance :-)
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
Sorry everybody for delay. This is c/p from the last e-mail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/900?l=1
“—- In ”mailto:NPSForum@yahoogroups.com">NPSForum@yahoogroups.com, “lpc1998” <lpc1998@…> wrote: > >
-———- Forwarded message-———- > From: lpc1998 > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: [top-politics] Re: Question for Eric > To: top-politics@googlegroups.com > > > Hi Gale, thank you, I am OK. > > Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a group to > develop its organizational structures based on some ideas I proposed > last year. Those ideas met with strong objections at the time they were > proposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposed them > could not come up with better alternatives and the group could not move > forward.Is it some internet group, or?
> I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top- politics to > respond to my request to notify the rest of the members on the proposal > to create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal could > determine the number of members who could participate in group’s > initiatives, apart from the individual initatives.
Why wait? Do! :)
BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?
> I am also having difficulties with the google archive with long > threads broken up into pieces with some of them missing making > conversations impossible to follow. If you guys can find a better site, > that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have control of > the site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want the group to > develop into a community. We cannot afford to have the site exclusively > in the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion of their > individual initiatives or unable to look after group interests.
In this moment we started wiki.
( This was the process of decision making): http://groups.google.com/group/top-
politics/browse_frm/thread/4cef329ab8547b5bLink on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.
If you find any problem about it, I could do it for you if you please.
> Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled by someone who > claims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth and anyone > who disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down. He is > obviously evangelizing a religion.
:-). It is only Mark in this very moment who uses this sort of arumentation as I could notice.
> As individuals, we are no match against the forces set against us in > our promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personal initiatives > and ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives that > would eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community that truly > upholds democratic principles and ideals.
Absolutely.
ATB;
GalePS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the reason you did not indulge Erics proposal?
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
[Gale]: “Is it some internet group, or?” [Latest comments from Eric]: Yes, it is. [Gale]: “Why wait? Do! :)” [Latest comments from Eric]: How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages?
[Gale]:BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way? [Latest comments from Eric]: No, I am not asking the owner use his head authority in realisation of my initiative. I am asking him to use the site tools to send out urgent messages to members who have become dormant; members who may not be reached by the messages sent to the group in the usual way. Of course, he could refuse my request, but at least, give me a reply. I joined in the groups in good faith. When I find owners only interested their own pet projects and not interested in group initiatives, such groups would not be given top priority for initiatvies. Anyway, the Google archive is chaotic. It can be very difficult to find messages there. [Gale]: "Link on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site." [Latest comments from Eric]: The link is not working. Who is the owner of this site? Do you have access to the site tools? Best Regards Eric
illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote: Sorry everybody for delay. This is c/p from the last e-mail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/900?l=1
“—- In ”mailto:NPSForum@yahoogroups.com">NPSForum@yahoogroups.com, “lpc1998” wrote: > >
-———- Forwarded message-———- > From: lpc1998 > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:22:20 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: [top-politics] Re: Question for Eric > To: top-politics@googlegroups.com > > > Hi Gale, thank you, I am OK. > > Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a group to > develop its organizational structures based on some ideas I proposed > last year. Those ideas met with strong objections at the time they were > proposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposed them > could not come up with better alternatives and the group could not move > forward.Is it some internet group, or?
> I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top- politics to > respond to my request to notify the rest of the members on the proposal > to create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal could > determine the number of members who could participate in group’s > initiatives, apart from the individual initatives.
Why wait? Do! :)
BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?
> I am also having difficulties with the google archive with long > threads broken up into pieces with some of them missing making > conversations impossible to follow. If you guys can find a better site, > that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have control of > the site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want the group to > develop into a community. We cannot afford to have the site exclusively > in the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion of their > individual initiatives or unable to look after group interests.
In this moment we started wiki.
( This was the process of decision making): http://groups.google.com/group/top-
politics/browse_frm/thread/4cef329ab8547b5bLink on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.
If you find any problem about it, I could do it for you if you please.
> Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled by someone who > claims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth and anyone > who disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down. He is > obviously evangelizing a religion.
:-). It is only Mark in this very moment who uses this sort of arumentation as I could notice.
> As individuals, we are no match against the forces set against us in > our promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personal initiatives > and ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives that > would eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community that truly > upholds democratic principles and ideals.
Absolutely.
ATB;
GalePS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the reason you did not indulge Erics proposal?
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
lpc1998 wrote:
> [Gale]: > “Is it some internet group, or?” > > [Latest comments from Eric]: > Yes, it is.
Can you send the link?
> [Gale]: > “Why wait? Do! :)” > > [Latest comments from Eric]: > How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages?
You are leading this initiative. From my point of view it is up to you to set this thing up, to lead it to realisation. I am willing to help you, so I am waiting for you to tell me what should I do to help you.
> [Gale]: > BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in > realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way? > > [Latest comments from Eric]: > No, I am not asking the owner use his head authority in > realisation of my initiative. I am asking him to use the site tools to send out urgent messages to members who have become dormant; members who may not be reached by the messages sent to the group in the usual way. Of course, he could refuse my request, but at least, give me a reply.
OK. This part is not of mine concern as long as I am not adminstrator.
> I joined in the groups in good faith. When I find owners only interested their own pet projects and not interested in group initiatives, such groups would not be given top priority for initiatvies. > > Anyway, the Google archive is chaotic. It can be very difficult to find messages there.
I do agree with you. I hope we will soonly find some way to increase transaprence of the group. This thing wit wiki might help, yet there are several mor things we could do also.
> [Gale]: > “Link on wiki: > > ”http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network">http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network > > I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating > group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions > and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site." > > [Latest comments from Eric]: > The link is not working.
OK. In this very moment it works. Please, if you find some time, check it out and say what do you think about it?
Who is the owner of this site? Do you have access to the site tools?That is wiki free hosting server. Something as google in a way of group hosting. Markus did have several thoughts about getting new domain, yet, from my point of view domain and hodting would be useless if there is no much interest in this. So, lets see is there interest at all?
ATB;
Gale> > Best Regards > Eric > > > > > illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Sorry everybody for delay. This is c/p from the last e-mail: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/900?l=1 > > “—- In ”mailto:NPSForum@yahoogroups.com">NPSForum@yahoogroups.com, “lpc1998” wrote: > > > >
-———- Forwarded message-———- > > From: lpc1998 > > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:22:200700 (PDT) > > Subject: Re: [top-politics] Re: Question for Eric > > To: top-politics@googlegroups.com > > > > > > Hi Gale, thank you, I am OK. > > > > Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a group > to > > develop its organizational structures based on some ideas I > proposed > > last year. Those ideas met with strong objections at the time they > were > > proposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposed > them > > could not come up with better alternatives and the group could not > move > > forward. > > > Is it some internet group, or? > > > > I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top> politics to > > respond to my request to notify the rest of the members on the > proposal > > to create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal could > > determine the number of members who could participate in group’s > > initiatives, apart from the individual initatives. > > > Why wait? Do! :) > > BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in > realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way? > > > > I am also having difficulties with the google archive with long > > threads broken up into pieces with some of them missing making > > conversations impossible to follow. If you guys can find a better > site, > > that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have control > of > > the site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want the > group to > > develop into a community. We cannot afford to have the site > exclusively > > in the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion of > their > > individual initiatives or unable to look after group interests. > > > In this moment we started wiki. > > ( This was the process of decision making): > http://groups.google.com/group/top- > politics/browse_frm/thread/4cef329ab8547b5b > > Link on wiki: > > http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network > > I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating > group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions > and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site. > > If you find any problem about it, I could do it for you if you > please. > > > > Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled by > someone who > > claims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth and > anyone > > who disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down. > He is > > obviously evangelizing a religion. > > :-). It is only Mark in this very moment who uses this sort of > arumentation as I could notice. > > > > As individuals, we are no match against the forces set against > us in > > our promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personal > initiatives > > and ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives that > > would eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community that > truly > > upholds democratic principles and ideals. > > Absolutely. > ATB; > Gale > > PS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the > reason you did not indulge Erics proposal? > > ATB, > Gale > > >-0-1447070918-1149694804=:80844 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Google-AttachSize: 5930 > >— In NPSForum@yahoogroups.com, “lpc1998” <LPC1998@…>wrote:[Gale]:“Is it some internet group, or?”[Latest comments from Eric]:Yes, it is.
[Gale]:“Why wait? Do! :)”[Latest comments from Eric]:How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages?[Gale]:
BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in
realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?[Latest comments from Eric]:No, I am not asking the owner use his head authority in
realisation of my initiative. I am asking him to use the site tools to send out urgent messages to members who have become dormant; members who may not be reached by the messages sent to the group in the usual way. Of course, he could refuse my request, but at least, give me a > reply.I joined in the groups in good faith. When I find owners only interested their own pet projects and not interested in group initiatives, such groups would not be given top priority for initiatvies.Anyway, the Google archive is chaotic. It can be very difficult to find messages there.[Gale]:"Link on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/ bin/view/ Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating
group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions
and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site."[Latest comments from Eric]:The link is not working. Who is the owner of this site? Do you have access > to the site tools?Best RegardsEric
Sorry everybody for delay. This is c/p from the last e-mail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NPSForum/message/900?l=1
"
>
>-———- Forwarded message-———-
> From: lpc1998
> Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:22:200700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [top-politics] Re: Question for Eric
> To: top-politics@googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hi Gale, thank you, I am OK.
>
> Lately, I have been very busy with work and also helping a group
to
> develop its organizational structures based on some ideas I
proposed
> last year. Those ideas met with strong > objections at the time they
were
> proposed. It was subsequently discovered that those who opposed
them
> could not come up with better alternatives and the group could not
move
> forward.
Is it some internet group, or?
> I am also waiting for the registered owners of Google top
politics to
> respond to my request to notify the rest of the members on the
proposal
> to create a Register of Electors or Voters. This proposal could
> determine the number of members who could participate in group’s
> initiatives, apart from the individual initatives.
Why wait? Do! :)
BTW, what if the owner does not want to use his head authority in
realisation of your initiative? Will you drop it or use another way?
> I am also having difficulties with the google archive with long
> threads broken up into pieces with some of them missing making
> conversations > impossible to follow. If you guys can find a better
site,
> that would be wonderful, but this time, make sure you have control
of
> the site too. We need access to the site tools, if we want the
group to
> develop into a community. We cannot afford to have the site
exclusively
> in the hands of those who are only interested in the promotion of
their
> individual initiatives or unable to look after group interests.
In this moment we started wiki.
( This was the process of decision making):
http://groups.google.com/group/top-
politics/browse_frm/thread/4cef329ab8547b5b
Link on wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
I suppose this could be fine place for defining things and creating
group documents we all agree about. If there are some of definitions
and other documents that cuold help us, please put them on site.
If you find any problem about it, I could do > it for you if you
please.
> Of course, it would be a disaster, if it is controlled by
someone who
> claims he alone has the revelation to the only eternal truth and
anyone
> who disagrees with him is necessary evil and has to be put down.
He is
> obviously evangelizing a religion.
:-). It is only Mark in this very moment who uses this sort of
arumentation as I could notice.
> As individuals, we are no match against the forces set against
us in
> our promotion of true democracy. So apart from our personal
initiatives
> and ideas, we also have to learn to develop group initiatives that
> would eventually evolve into a massive world-wide community that
truly
> upholds democratic principles and ideals.
Absolutely.
ATB;
Gale
PS. I have one small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the
reason you did not indulge Erics proposal? >
ATB,
Gale
>-0-1447070918-1149694804=:80844-ne small question for Markus and Magnus. What was the
reason you did not indulge Erics proposal? >
ATB,
Gale
>-0-1447070918-1149694804=:80844-
+1
-
[Gale]: “Is it some internet group, or?” [Eric]: Yes, it is. [Latest comments from Gale]: Can you send the link? [Latest comments from Eric]: OK, by personal email with some introductory notes. [Gale]: “Why wait? Do! :)” [Eric]: How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages? [Latest comments from Gale]: “You are leading this initiative. From my point of view it is up to you to set this thing up, to lead it to realisation. I am willing to help you, so I am waiting for you to tell me what should I do to help you.” [Latest comments from Eric]: The best course of action now for this particular initiative is to do nothing. Let everything including the emotions settle down first and until such time when it is generally felt that an orgainsed approach serves the individual initiatives better, that vigorous group review and criticisms are a valuable resource for the upgrading and improvements of the individual initiatives and that weaknesses in the individual initiatives need not be doggedly defended like a valuable inheritance. Apart from Markus, you and me, the group is obviously not ready for the initiative and practical democracy. It is amusing that a suggestion to elect someone to co-ordinate the discussions could lead to so much suspicions and unease. On hindsight, I should not have called that someone “a leader”. I should have called him “a donkey” since he is going to do all the donkey work, but then no one may want to be a donkey. Best Regards Eric Lim
+1
-
lpc1998 wrote:
> [Gale]: > “Is it some internet group, or?” > > [Eric]: > Yes, it is. > > [Latest comments from Gale]: > Can you send the link? > > [Latest comments from Eric]: > OK, by personal email with some introductory notes.
No TOP? OK, if you have the reason to do such thing.
> [Gale]: > “Why wait? Do! :)” > > [Eric]: > How to do it when I have no access to the site tools to send out urgent messages? > > > [Latest comments from Gale]: > “You are leading this initiative. From my point of view it is up to you > to set this thing up, to lead it to realisation. I am willing to help > you, so I am waiting for you to tell me what should I do to help you.” > > [Latest comments from Eric]: > The best course of action now for this particular initiative is to do nothing. Let everything including the emotions settle down first and until such time when it is generally felt that an orgainsed approach serves the individual initiatives better, that vigorous group review and criticisms are a valuable resource for the upgrading and improvements of the individual initiatives and that weaknesses in the individual initiatives need not be doggedly defended like a valuable inheritance.
OK. I am following your lead :-)
> Apart from Markus, you and me, the group is obviously not ready for the initiative and practical democracy. It is amusing that a suggestion to elect someone to co-ordinate the discussions could lead to so much suspicions and unease. On hindsight, I should not have called that someone “a leader”. I should have called him “a donkey” since he is going to do all the donkey work, but then no one may want to be a donkey.
Absolutely.
ATB,
Gale> > Best Regards > Eric Lim
+1
-
Hey Eric!
There was a little irc talk between me and Emmanuel about this issue. I decided to start it as long as there is a lot of empty action which is demotivating and dispowering thing.
As long as I am strongly for empowerment of our thoughts and initiatives, it seems to me that this part of choosing leader who would be attractor for the next step is esential thing. At least, I do not see other ways. OK, I can notice there is a suggetsion of Magnus that we should create procedures, yet for this part there is even less interest in this very moment.
>From the last mail you sent to me, I can notice you are not interested in this at this moment, but may I ask you is there any sense that those who acknowledged this part, meaning, Emmanuel, Markus, you and me try this little game, to see can it lead anywhere?
What I can notice is that 4 of us can make a little gravity center in this group, that could be used by other members who decided not to take a part of this process in this very time.
If we eventually do that, I hope that many pending concepts that showed in this group could get used and realised which is a key moment if we want to move on.
All in all, I find your proposal to be simple and straight, able to solve this ongoing problem. As long as I lost some of mine motivation due to much of the empty work, I am actually forced to wait for your opinion about should we move on from the position we are at right now? Should those who showed interest to move on in this way, take the part of responsiblity and really move on?
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
If Emmanuel and Markus are also keen on the group initiative, I see no reason why we cannot give it a try. Our discussions and proceedings will be transparent and open and all are welcome to join in, but only those who have agreed to be part of this small group (“the discussion group”) can vote. This is necessary for determining the majority decision.
Of course, if there were any other person who now wishes to join this discussion group, he/she is welcome, but once the discussion group is formed, those who wish to join the it would need the agreement of the discussion group.
Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the process going, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work and other commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who can spare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions.
Best Regards
Eric Lim
illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote: Hey Eric!
There was a little irc talk between me and Emmanuel about this issue. I decided to start it as long as there is a lot of empty action which is demotivating and dispowering thing.
As long as I am strongly for empowerment of our thoughts and initiatives, it seems to me that this part of choosing leader who would be attractor for the next step is esential thing. At least, I do not see other ways. OK, I can notice there is a suggetsion of Magnus that we should create procedures, yet for this part there is even less interest in this very moment.
>From the last mail you sent to me, I can notice you are not interested in this at this moment, but may I ask you is there any sense that those who acknowledged this part, meaning, Emmanuel, Markus, you and me try this little game, to see can it lead anywhere?
What I can notice is that 4 of us can make a little gravity center in this group, that could be used by other members who decided not to take a part of this process in this very time.
If we eventually do that, I hope that many pending concepts that showed in this group could get used and realised which is a key moment if we want to move on.
All in all, I find your proposal to be simple and straight, able to solve this ongoing problem. As long as I lost some of mine motivation due to much of the empty work, I am actually forced to wait for your opinion about should we move on from the position we are at right now? Should those who showed interest to move on in this way, take the part of responsiblity and really move on?
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
I have already voted for gale. My vote still stands :)
echarp
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:53PM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the process > going, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work and > other commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who can > spare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions.
+1
-
This is great. I vote for Gale too. Let us wait for another 6 days (by 21 June 2006) for the others to respond. 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. Best Regards Eric Lim
echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote: I have already voted for gale. My vote still stands :)
echarp
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:53PM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the process > going, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work and > other commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who can > spare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions.
+1
-
lpc1998 wrote:
> This is great. I vote for Gale too. Let us wait for another 6 days (by 21 June 2006) for the others to respond.
OK.
> 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.
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.
Nevertheless, I am glad to see this moving on.
ATB,
Gale> > Best Regards > Eric Lim > > > echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote: > > I have already voted for gale. My vote still stands :) > > echarp > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:53PM
—0-1763348847-1150379648=:29711—0700, lpc1998 wrote: > > Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the process > > going, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work and > > other commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who can > > spare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions. > > > > > > —0-1763348847-1150379648=:29711 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Google-AttachSize: 1450 > >-This is great. I vote for Gale too. Let us wait for another 6 days (by 21 June 2006) for the others to respond.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.Best RegardsEric Lim
echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr> wrote:
I have already voted > for gale. My vote still stands :)
echarp
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:55:53PM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> Okay, this time let the three of you propose the leader and get the process
> going, but, as before, don’t propose me for the job because my work and
> other commitments are very heavy at the moment. We need someone who can
> spare enough time to organise things and lead the discussions.
> —0-1763348847-1150379648=:29711
+1
-
[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 leaderto 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
+1
-
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
+1
-
06/07/06 17:56
magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
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
+2
-
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!!!
> 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
+1
-
-
06/07/06 17:56
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-