[top-politics] irc

[top-politics] Re: 20060909#parlement

Serge — 2006-09-10 14:03:49+0200

Hi,

I personally favor the very simple and functional definition of truth given by Erich Fromm. In short, truth can be defined as a functional approximation of reality. The closer to the truth you are, the better you are able to grasp on your environment. As one can see, this is coherent with the widely shared view of what illusions/delusions are, and how they affect one’s ability to deal with their environment in a productive manner.

Actually went and modified the entry about truth on wikipedia, here’s the bit on Fromm I added if you want a fuller explanation:

Fromm’s theory of truth

[top-politics] Re: Disagreeable

Serge — 2006-09-06 00:49:05+0200

Hi,

If I may interfere in the exchange for a second, it seems to me that Mark is concerned about designing a system with a lot of sophistication from the start. On the other hand, Emmanuel seems more concerned about designing a system that won’t have as many options and background rules, and will allow a direct implementation and simpler use.

It seems to me that Mark’s concept of a system would probably be adequate when people have had a chance to familiarize themselves with network-based TOP democracy, and such system may need to face use on a very large scale in which more complex algorythmic fine-tuning may be required to allow deliberative processes not to be bogged down by information overflow. On the other hand, if one agrees that any TOP democracy system is extremely likely to be first adopted by small organizations / local authorities, as opposed to national governments, a requirement in order to get things started quickly would be a TOP democratic system that can be implemented and operated simply and efficiently by a small constituency

Therefore, it would make sense for Emmanuel to develop his project in as simple a form as possible, while Mark seems well suited to help with the future evolution of such a system when considering larger constituencies, which will undoubtedly influence for the better the initial platform in the meantime. In the same fashion, the lessons learned with the implementation of a simpler system would surely greatly help in the detection of possible problems linked to scale and inform Mark’s own effort. Thus your disagreements/differences could actually be exploited to benefit both your visions over time as opposed to being seen as mutually exclusive propositions. If I misunderstood your respective positions, please do correct me.

[top-politics] Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm

AbdLomax — 2006-09-06 17:56:38+0200

At 03:41 PM 9/5/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: ‘of course’ – again, why the override? Why not let the voter decide >if there is going to be an override or not? Maybe the voter wants both >a direct vote and more than one delegate. SD2-S allows for this. How is >your way better?

Indeed, why not? The question is whether or not a coded solution is necessary to implement such choice.

If we have a very simple proxy list (one proxy per member), and we have voting records, that is, we know who voted and how, then any analyst can determine

(1) the direct vote. This is generally automatic with, say, yahoogroups voting. Note that this direct vote is what is already generally available. (2) the expanded proxy vote. This can be done by comparing the vote record with the proxy list. The algorithms which can do so are simple, the core of the process, in its simplest form, would be that where a member has not voted, the member’s vote is added with the vote of his or her proxy; if his or her proxy has not voted, the chain of proxies up the tree is examined until an actual voter is found, and the member’s virtual vote is determined in this way. If no voting proxy has been found, the member is in a loop or an inactive branch, and the member may be notified. This notification can be done by any privileged member, that is, any member entrusted with the actual membership list.

Read more… / Lire plus…

So, if the member wants an override, in this simple system, the member merely votes. And if the member does not want an override, the member does not vote. Either the member wants analysts to consider the member’s vote in a result, or not. If not, the member’s vote is dicta, meaningless.

I presume that voting results would appear in stages. However, the essence of the FA/DP systems we envision are that they do not generate excess traffic for members. Many members may not want to be notified of every vote. If we are thinking of a single organization, as many of us do, we often imagine active members and members who would want to know everything going on. But this becomes impossible when there are hundreds of organizations that a member might belong to.

Some would set up a single, massive organization, and then members would participate in issue forums. This is really equivalent to a set of distinct organizations sharing certain central resources. However, independent organizations can already share central resources.

If the relatively complex systems being proposed actually exist and are operational, I’d be happy to see them, indeed I am eager to do so. But I’d personally invest my coding resources — and conceptual resources — in the very simplest systems first. From our experience with these, I would then move to more complex systems, the bells and whistles, so to speak, or even to crucial features that were not possible with the initial simplicity.

Simple DP, through a proxy list, available for analysis, will serve quite well, I expect, in organizations with the purpose of communication and voluntary coordination and cooperation, and specifically in the FA context, where votes do not directly move power. Once power is moved, the control mechanisms become crucial. And we really don’t know the hazards.

As the members of FA/DP organizations increasingly become involved in power and control structures, they will bring with them an experience with DP, as well as of how possible it is to find consensus when the structures encourage and allow it. And at that time, we will have much more knowledge about what works and what does not and what is necessary and what is not.

Complexity in communication systems is a double-edged sword. It can increase utility, but it also increases the number of possible failure modes. It is generally good engineering practice to seek the simplest possible functional systems and to be cautious about complicating them. Every added component, unless the design is very careful, adds increased risk of failure.

Now, I just wrote a relatively long post, in answer to a simple question. The question was not directed at me, but at someone else who is, from what I’ve seen, thinking very much along the same lines as I have. A briefer answer is that what was called “your way” is better because it is simpler. In the absence of demonstrated necessity for the complications suggested, simplicity is a commonly-recognized engineering goal. And engineers who don’t understand that find failure in the market, I’ve seen it again and again. Even if, from their perhaps obsessive point of view, their way was “better.”

I know one RF engineer who is as picky as one can imagine. Now, RF engineering is complex, and, as a support engineer, I expect to see, shall we say, unusual requests. But the pickiness goes far beyond the ultimate customer’s design goal. The documentation must be just so. The parts used must be cost-optimized to the last penny. None of these things are wrong, in themselves, indeed, they can be quite important. But if the job is not ready in time because less consequential aspects of the design require further work to satisfy the engineer’s artificially exacting requirements…. the whole project was wasted. Striking the proper balance is a crucial skill for an engineer. Without it, engineers tend to be isolated dreamers, wondering why the world is not building their castles. Their very perfect castles. Better than anyone else’s.

Re: [top-politics] irc

eggy — 2007-03-05 07:38:04+0100

I use mIRC f0r IRC but not able to find irc.freenode.net. Is it still there and is it being used? eggy

[top-politics] 20061226#parlement

echarp — 2006-12-27 06:27:42+0100

—- Log opened mar déc 26 00:00:57 2006

22:58 ! gale (gale) [n=g@89-172-3-176.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has joined #parlement
22:58 < gale> io
23:01 ! gale [n=g@89-172-3-176.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has quit [Client Quit] —- Log closed mer déc 27 00:00:57 2006

—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

[top-politics] 20061225#parlement

echarp — 2006-12-26 06:27:59+0100

—- Log opened lun déc 25 00:00:33 2006 —- Day changed lun déc 25 2006

00:00 ! nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=nsh@88.144.38.25] has joined #parlement
00:15 ! nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)]
01:32 ! nsh_ is now known as nsh
04:01 ! nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=nsh@87.242.145.212] has joined #parlement
04:01 ! nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
04:01 ! nsh_ is now known as nsh
08:02 ! nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=nsh@88.144.8.251] has joined #parlement
08:17 ! nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [No route to host]

Read more… / Lire plus…

12:03 ! nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=nsh@87.242.140.54] has joined #parlement
12:18 ! nsh_ [n=nsh@88.144.8.251] has quit [Connection timed out]
14:26 ! nsh__ is now known as nsh
19:42 ! Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
19:42 < echarp> merry christmass —- Log closed mar déc 26 00:00:57 2006

[top-politics] 20061224#parlement

echarp — 2006-12-25 06:27:35+0100

—- Log opened dim déc 24 00:00:57 2006

00:13 ! gale (gale) [n=g@89-172-27-225.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has joined #parlement
00:13 < gale:#parlement> io
00:15 ! gale [n=g@89-172-27-225.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has quit [Client Quit]
17:40 ! nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement —- Log closed lun déc 25 00:00:33 2006

[top-politics] 20061223#parlement

echarp — 2006-12-24 06:27:59+0100

—- Log opened sam déc 23 00:00:57 2006

05:58 ! urgyen [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:58 ! urgyen is urgy
05:59 ! urgen [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Connection reset by peer]
12:01 ! Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:30 ! gale (illegale) [n=gale1@89-172-27-225.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has joined #parlement
13:30 < gale:#parlement> io
13:38 ! gale [n=gale1@89-172-27-225.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has quit []
18:36 ! gale (gale) [n=g@89-172-27-225.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has joined #parlement

Read more… / Lire plus…

18:36 < gale:#parlement> io
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> hi
19:05 < gale:#parlement> hey
19:09 ! gale [n=g@89-172-27-225.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has quit []
19:27 ! nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [“Leaving”]
19:31 ! nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
21:03 ! nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=nsh@88.144.72.28] has joined #parlement
21:10 ! nsh_ [n=nsh@88.144.72.28] has quit [“Leaving”]
21:19 ! nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)] —- Log closed dim déc 24 00:00:57 2006

[top-politics] 20061222#parlement

echarp — 2006-12-23 06:27:45+0100

—- Log opened ven déc 22 00:00:57 2006

01:00 ! Netsplit brown.freenode.net <→ irc.freenode.net quits: urgen, nsh —- Log closed ven déc 22 01:08:27 2006 —- Log opened ven déc 22 01:13:41 2006
01:13 ! echarp [n=33M002Pa@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
01:13 [Users #parlement]
01:13 [ echarp] [ nsh] [ urgen]
01:13 ! Irssi: #parlement: Total of 3 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 3 normal]
01:13 ! Channel #parlement created Sun Nov 26 07:42:52 2006
01:14 ! Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 53 secs
01:35 ! Netsplit zelazny.freenode.net <→ irc.freenode.net quits: urgen, nsh
01:35 ! urgen (urgy) [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement

Read more… / Lire plus…

01:36 ! nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@84-43-122-237.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
10:53 ! titemagli (gaim) [n=librisof@AMontsouris-153-1-26-80.w86-212.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #parlement
10:53 < titemagli:#parlement> hello !
10:57 ! Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:57 < echarp> coucou titemagli
10:57 < echarp> how are you?
11:02 < titemagli> i m fine thanks
11:02 < titemagli> and you ?
11:03 < echarp> great
11:03 < echarp> learning some new things everyday
11:03 < echarp> seam looks nice, but the whole jBoss stack is rather complex
11:03 < echarp> (this is architectural stuff ;)
11:22 < echarp> what do you think of the channels list titemagli ?
11:53 < titemagli> very long
13:06 ! titemagli [n=librisof@AMontsouris-153-1-26-80.w86-212.abo.wanadoo.fr] has left #parlement []
19:56 ! nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [“Leaving”]
21:02 ! nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement —- Log closed sam déc 23 00:00:57 2006

[top-politics] 20061221#parlement

echarp — 2006-12-22 06:27:38+0100

—- Log opened jeu déc 21 00:00:57 2006

18:15 ! Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement —- Log closed ven déc 22 00:00:57 2006