Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (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
- 08/05 14:41 +5 How to improve communication on the list?
- 12/09 13:53 +4 Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
- 23/11 23:11 +3 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/09 19:51 +3 Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
- 11/07 13:20 +3 Re: echarp(2) magnus(1) Re: Question for Eric
- 10/07 16:11 +3 Origins of the power
- 03/07 19:11 +3 About TOP
- 03/07 16:44 +3 Re: What does TOP mean to you?
- 23/05 03:24 +3 Re: An average political forum - top politics
- 20/05 12:31 +3 Re: Question for Mark
Latest posts
- 27/06 14:04 +1 I love the internet
- 23/01 00:00 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 27/07 10:31 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 12:37 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 12:33 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 26/07 11:53 +1 Re: Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 25/07 01:12 +2 Re Cyber Discuss & Decide
- 24/07 14:19 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 11/07 05:40 +1 Re: How to improve communication on the list?
- 27/12 16:10 +1 Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
Parlement
-
19/04/06 13:13
top-politics
This “group”:http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics was “started”:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics with the goal of creating a network of different initiatives which reside on the TOP (Transparent Open Public) principles of political activities.
We hope that we will soon be able to share concepts, ideas and suggestions about the Internet as a media, OpenSource as a paradigm and Democracy as the ultimate goal.
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
08/05/06 14:41
[top-politics] How to improve communication on the list?
Many, many talk about it, nothing has been done about it. OK, almost nothing, as long as E is doing +1/o/-1 stuff in this moment. Yet, there is no organised manner of fighting non transparency of this group. So, let me start with it on this topic.
First of all, OFF TOPIC. If somebody makes some off topic, it would be rather good to open new topic about it if there is no already topic about it.
In that way, other members who do not lurk trough every single theme all the time, will have oportunity to see that and participate there.
Another thing is that I can notice many very simmilar topics all the way, in the last time usually about lemming stuff.
This random theme promotion is NOT GOOD. If we look this group, we can not find one single topic where several members decided to solve one single problem till the moment they succeed in that.
So, my first reccomendation about this is this procedure:
- Articulate the topic
- Start the topic
- Invite other members you find would be interested in it
- All the off topic that suits to that topic on the other themes, move
there.
5 If there come out the new questions, articulate them and open new topic or join it to existing topic about it.
Second reccomendation would be finding way of articulation of the procedure of how to get conclusions of the topic and conclusions themselves. Yet, first reccomendation is the first thing to do.
So, what do you think?
One more thing. If E, Mark, Magnus and Markus agree about this, Eric said he would do the same thing. So, is this a good way forward or not?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+5
New discussion
Answer
-
04/08/06 03:39
[top-politics] Social Decision Support System
People,
Apparently Rodriguez has been googling around and he stumbled accross my thread.
He has since sent me this paper for us to read:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/grammar-decision-hicss2007.pdfRodriguez,
since Brad and Victor have been slow about getting me onto Smartocracy, I would like to critique a few points about its current form, both theoreticly and how it is implimented, here at this site instead of waiting to get onto Smartocracy:- Smartocracy started as a generalist system, then became a specialist
system.
By contast, SD2 is generalist umbrella system. SD2-Smartocracy has the best of both worlds by defaulting the specialist selections to the general trustees.
- Smartocracy has ten choices. By contrast, SD2-Smartocracy would have
only two semi-manditory choices, and would allow for upto ten.
Semi-manditory, meaning that the algorithm would choose default reps
if none are chosen – PageRank would be directed to gaps in the rank
distribution, to the lower ranked node to help to linearize the rank
distribution. This gap could be defined by actual numerical value and
by relative value.
This would allow for direct democracy-like voting inputs which may be useful for newcomers who don’t know the players.
- From your Humancollective paper you wrote this: “DecisionError = NetworkDeci sion – PerfectDeci sion (4)”
What the hell is a ‘perfect’ decision? Its as if you were using DD as the ideal by which to measure your(also our- SD2 is augmented too) RD system.
If so, why not just have DD?
My approach is this: some centrality algorithms(when used democraticly) are more predictive of the future outputs of competing algoithms then vice-versa. This ties into the idea that RD is for leadership selection, and real leaders are pre-emptive of knowing what policies should be popular in the future.
So any good centrality algorithm should find such people, making their output more pre-emptive than competing outputs.- Should I trust Brad?
I asked him directly if Smartocracy was open-source.
And Victor didn’t seem to know.
Shouldn’t the program be on Rubyforge?
Rodriguez, these are only nit-picks, and I am jazzed Smartocracy. I would love to get involved.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
- Smartocracy started as a generalist system, then became a specialist
system.
-
-
08/09/06 20:53
[top-politics] Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
Dear members of Group of 5.
3 months ago 5 of us decided to join forces in order of moving forward together. We set our first goal, which was definition of TOP, which is not so easy task, yet rather important for our future work.
In last month we lost some interest in moving forward, probably due to holiday season which is now over.
I believe we can go on and finish our first goal. I understand that some of you did not gain interest back to finish our first work, but I have to mention that the worst thing that can happen is to leave things non-finished. If we did agree to enter this process and finish our first task, we have to do that, even if most of us would not enjoy that much anymore.
But, if we leave this task non-finished, instead of gaining more trust among each other, we will actually loose trust, which makes this be creation of non-trust network, something highly demotivating for further work and cooperation that all of us will actually need if we want to succeed in our political work.
So, Markus and I are moving on, I hope other members will find some strenght to endure to finish of our first goal. After that we can separate.
ATB,
GalePS. Whoever including persons who are not origian members of group of 5 is willing to participate in continuing of this process, please read previous mail from definition of TOP in order to get fully informed before moving on.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
-
08/09/06 23:20
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
+1
I have a little suggestion. Since through intensive communication we weren’t able to formulate a concise definition I propose that we take the text on http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP as a starting point, and see what is good, and what is bad in such a definition. Maybe through an OpenSource approach we can optimize this definition, e.g. write new versions and track down bugs until we are all satisfied with the definition.
Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
-
09/09/06 16:11
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
+1 Hey,
Just registered on the TOP website, I agree editing the Wiki is probably the simplest and fastest option to get the definition agreed on. Also it seems to me that if the mechanisms of TOP require a lot of thought and experimentation, defining TOP seems actually pretty straightforward. Probably deceptively since you appear to have had extensive discussions on it. I know that when talking to some friends about the concept of transparency there is no misunderstanding as to what is meant (ie, when you want to have a look, things are clear). I’ll try making some edits to the wiki, and then you’ll cut or keep depending on what you think and off we go.
Have a good weekend,
Serge-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
09/09/06 18:38
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
Hello Serge.
If you think that would be the finest manner of realising this work, then I am proud to say we have set first competition in project menagement.
IMO, thorough brain stream is really needed for setting proper basic shell for this, where wiki is not as usefull as regular discussion group. Of course, my assumption might be wrong.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
12/09/06 13:53
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
Hey,
Modified the wiki over the weekend, tried to keep the elements while adding some and making it more concise overall. Any comments or reaction?
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+4
-
-
-
09/09/06 15:13
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
This is the current process we adopted, based on three basic questions:
Now, we are in the phase 1 called:
“Where are we now?”
In this moment we do share some thoughts about TOP and how do we understand it. In this very moment, as long as we just gathering new thoughts and perspectives, there is some need for free communication withouth too concrete bindings.
When we do share some thoughts, or at least when Serge gives his shot as long as others might be satisfied with they current participation in this very moment, next thing we can do is to take thoughts of OTHER participiants.
By pointing out thoughts of others, we can notice how penetrating are these thoughts in general public that is not based on our micro contexts that are not politically relevant.
Then we are entering to second stage which is:
“Where would we like to be?”
In second stage we share our expectations of future definition. What do we actually want from it? What are our desires and needs?
When we realise our needs, we can develop basic shell on xwiki and start filling it.
The last stage:
“How do we get there?”
Might be based on xwiki as recomended, yet the whole process is openstanding and can be changed if we realise there current process is not satisfactory.
Now, we can also set general dead lines and my suggestion is that we set next generation of TOP definition in 2 months in order of not letting this project die due to no time expectations.
ATB;
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
09/09/06 16:16
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
Transparency
Open
Public
Personally I love and appreciate transparency, I propose a criteria to determine if an organisation is strongly transparent => if it publishes enough data so as to be able to setup a duplicate organisation of itself.
This is particularly useful in democratic settings, where a duplicability criteria would help in order to audit any process and its data.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
09/09/06 01:21
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
Hey Gale,
Can’t find again that page I had seen with all your votes and the results, but from what I understand the aims are, I’d very much like to participate.
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
09/09/06 14:17
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
Hello Serge.
I am really glad you are interested in participation.
Let me share links: What does TOP mean to you?
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418/#
In this part above we generally discuss over TOP.
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/4a54bfb6539f7049/#
In this part we did set some thoughts of a way how are we going to discuss over TOP.
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/2e36b043403287ec/#
This is actually extra literature (:)), text I translated about TOP from Croatian. It was not originally part of the discussion, but it might be usefull.
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP
This is current definition of TOP from Tiaktiv, yet we do not think it has satisfying value, so that is the reason we from Tiaktiv actually show big interests in redefinition of the whole oncept.
ATB,
GaleSerge wrote:
Hey Gale,Can’t find again that page I had seen with all your votes and theresults, but from what I understand the aims are, I’d very much like toparticipate.Best regards,Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
19/08/06 22:33
[top-politics] FA/DP - some questions & comments
Dear Lomax,
I’ve now read some articles on http://beyondpolitics.org, and I find FA/DP a very interesting concept. It’s pretty interesting that we (TiAktiv, TOP) have come to some similar conclusions independently from each other which is another indication that we are on the right way.
FA-s if I understood right are (in organization theory terms) informal network organizations, e.g. organizations without hierarchy, based on information flow between participant. DP is a system (which kind of reminds me of SD-2 and CLD2) which allows the dynamic building of a hierarchy in a network of people, e.g. defines responsibility and decision rights (if I didn’t miss something).
So FA/DP seems to be another implementation of the fishnet organization (which Gale and my self like so much to point out :-D )
Also what I really wellcome is that you point out that the whole organizational processes in some FA/DP organization should be transparent, or better TOP which is one of the main points this group has reached concensus about.
An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2 and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchy without focusing on special requirements of special problems. For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity (e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionals for this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall the best” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”. SD-2 and CLD2 have the same problem, and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formed autopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement using an SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations forming multiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain part of interest).
Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP on large scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate information system to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all this different delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000 members, just think how many paperwork this is.
In the end, FA/PD is a good concept and should be taken into consideration. If you like (since if I understood right you aren’t a programmer) I would propose to use this concept in a possible TOP Information System for try out (other concepts should also be included and time should show which concepts are most usefull).Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
08/09/06 23:09
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP - some questions & comments
Markus Schatten wrote:
mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2 and CLD2)specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchy withoutfocusing on special requirements of special problems.
-M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlap between the two umbrellas.
SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form of DP where people are encouraged to select specialists.mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity (e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionals for this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall the best” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.
SD-2 […] have the same problem,…
-M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t have specialists.
mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formed autopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement using an SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations forming multiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain part of interest).
-M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part? Can’t someone:
- be a multiple specialist?
- be a generalist?
- be both a generalist and specialist?
- be neither?
SD2-S allows for this flexibility.
mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP on large scaleis allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate information system to supportit. There needs to be a way to keep track of all this different delegations,and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000 members, just think how manypaperwork this is.[…]
-M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for the sake of scaleability.
Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracy defaults?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
08/09/06 23:26
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP - some questions & comments
Dear Mark
On Friday 08 September 2006 23:09, Mark wrote:
Markus Schatten wrote:
Of course, I know that, and we discused that allready ;-)mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchywithout focusing on special requirements of special problems.
-M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlapbetween the two umbrellas.SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form ofDP where people are encouraged to select specialists.
OK ;-)mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity(e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionalsfor this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall thebest” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.
SD-2 […] have the same problem,…-M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t havespecialists.
No they don’t.mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formedautopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement usingan SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations formingmultiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain partof interest).
-M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part?Can’t someone:1. be a multiple specialist?2. be a generalist?3. be both a generalist and specialist?4. be neither?
Yes (to all four).
SD2-S allows for this flexibility.
Yes it does.
It is possible. BTW. have you made an SD2-S elaboration (as you did with SD2)? A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document in which you describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki would be a nice place to publish it :-PmS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP onlarge scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate informationsystem to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all thisdifferent delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000members, just think how many paperwork this is.[…]
-M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for thesake of scaleability.Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracydefaults?
For now I have the spreadsheet program (which I can use for a possible TOP system), but have to change some stuff to get it to work with SD2 and SD2-S.Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
10/09/06 18:37
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP - some questions & comments
mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchywithout focusing on special requirements of special problems.
M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlapbetween the two umbrellas.SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form ofDP where people are encouraged to select specialists.mS: Of course, I know that, and we discused that allready ;)
-M: OK, I just wanted to be sure that you remembered. Also others benefit by this clarification.mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity(e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionalsfor this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall thebest” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.SD-2 […] have the same problem,…
-M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t havespecialists.
mS: OK ;-)
-M: Even then it wouldn’t nessicarily be a problem because the directors could choose to use a specialist system.mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formedautopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement usingan SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations formingmultiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain partof interest).
-M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part?
mS: No they don’t.Can’t someone:1. be a multiple specialist?2. be a generalist?3. be both a generalist and specialist?4. be neither?
mS: Yes (to all four).M: OK. :)SD2-S allows for this flexibility.
mS: Yes it does.
mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP onlarge scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate informationsystem to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all thisdifferent delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000members, just think how many paperwork this is.[…]
-M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for thesake of scaleability.Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracydefaults?mS: It is possible. BTW. have you made an SD2-S elaboration (as you did with SD2)?
-M: Yes, I have formalized most of the Dance-Monkey algorithm on a piece of paper but haven’t posted it yet. SD2-S would have further input constraints on this algorithm.mS: A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document in whichyou describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki would be a niceplace to publish it :-P
-M: I’ll do that!
mS: For now I have the spreadsheet program (which I can use for a possible TOPsystem), but have to change some stuff to get it to work with SD2 and SD2-S.
-M: OK. I was thinking of a wiki with SD2-S constraints. Pimki is similar to a wiki,
http://pimki.rubyforge.org/
and has network graphing capability
http://www.graphviz.org/
This could create collaborative writing projects with hierarchal control.Is this a good idea?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
11/09/06 04:36
[top-politics] FA/DP and TOP
Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP, i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for “participatory?”
In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to its members, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.
The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimate transformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully open and transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately, as they see fit.
Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it will become much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public, and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far more efficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutually beneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and the public as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once they are doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending on the rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewards innovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., it issues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, I think that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight!
I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, but rather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking, the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
02/10/06 14:23
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP and TOP
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:
I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon? Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?ATB;
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
03/10/06 05:45
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP and TOP
At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:
Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond the individual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged or asleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?
Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannot be by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may set filters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
However, every input, before being filtered out, for maximum intelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense could represent the entire output of an individual.
FA/DP maximizes the possibility that an individual
- any individual -will have a relatively sympathetic channel for accessing the system. But the proxy relationship is a free one. Nobody can be forced to be a proxy.Much of the writing on liquid democracy seems to assume that there will be competition for proxies, which is based on a power model. In a communications model, being a proxy is a job, a task, and, in particular, one is responsible to one’s clients. Take on too many clients for the context and it becomes a quite burdensome task. The abstraction of communication from power in FA/DP means that there is not a great deal of advantage to holding a lot of proxies. Yes, you will have a certain amount of power as a result, but it is not direct power, it is indirect, depending entirely on your ability to persuade your clients to act in a certain way. Collecting empty proxies, i.e., the proxies of people who are not going to actually contribute anything, is simply collecting dead weight.
This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runs quite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics. Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?
It is the great error. Following it, we try to control outcomes, instead of establishing intelligent process. Yes, there will be the application of power. But intelligence must come first. Or else we simply reproduce what has come before. With new faces.
To continue examining the relationship with TOP (transparent, open, public): again, because FA/DP is free, it is free to be private and secret. However, the truly essential and expansive possibilities are with TOP systems. Within those systems, some caucuses will operate privately. Others will find secrecy a hindrance. They will find the balance.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
04/10/06 01:19
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP and TOP
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote:
Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:
Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond theindividual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged orasleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?
Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannotbe by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may setfilters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
TOP goes fine with filters. In other words one does not excludes the other one. Of course, filtering I am mentioning is only freedom of selecting relevant informations, not to disable free speech. An example of such software is first generation of Tiaktivs forum.
However, every input, before being filtered out, for maximumintelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense couldrepresent the entire output of an individual.
OK.
FA/DP maximizes the possibility that an individual
- any individual- will have a relatively sympathetic channel for accessing thesystem. But the proxy relationship is a free one. Nobody can beforced to be a proxy.Much of the writing on liquid democracy seems to assume that therewill be competition for proxies, which is based on a power model. Ina communications model, being a proxy is a job, a task, and, inparticular, one is responsible to one’s clients. Take on too manyclients for the context and it becomes a quite burdensome task. Theabstraction of communication from power in FA/DP means that there isnot a great deal of advantage to holding a lot of proxies. Yes, youwill have a certain amount of power as a result, but it is not directpower, it is indirect, depending entirely on your ability to persuadeyour clients to act in a certain way. Collecting empty proxies, i.e.,the proxies of people who are not going to actually contributeanything, is simply collecting dead weight.This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runsquite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics.Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.
It is the great error. Following it, we try to control outcomes,instead of establishing intelligent process.
Going our way does not exlude adoptation process. Especially not in the open systems.
Yes, there will be the application of power. But intelligence mustcome first. Or else we simply reproduce what has come before. With new faces.To continue examining the relationship with TOP (transparent, open,public): again, because FA/DP is free, it is free to be private andsecret. However, the truly essential and expansive possibilities arewith TOP systems. Within those systems, some caucuses will operateprivately. Others will find secrecy a hindrance. They will find the balance.
Hmh. So, what is the key thought that makes your model be working? What we see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existing political paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controling information. So, if that can make the World the better place, if that is what we believe it is (OpenSoruce in software development showed its efficiency already, and OpenSource is actually completelly compatible to politics we want to see functioning), than we have to ask ourselves, what are we going to start? New political paradigm, or alternative network based on internet?. One more thing. About networks. This is the project pretty many people tried to start. More precisely, if one sentient politican does not succeed in gathering political support, he turns to networking others in order of finding simmilar thinkers to work together or to support those with greater chance.
Me personaly worked that way a while also. Yet, if you want to succeed in agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join my network. And that is not so easy task. Especially in the moment people under pressure of mass media loose faith in humanity in general. So, what is that you can offer to regular person? Tool where he can delegate proxy? Why should he need such thing in this very moment? I understand that you have larger picture in your head, but that picture is simmilar to Marks intention of creating decision making procedure withouth feeling a pulse of others. And as long as others did not feel that pulse, your general thought with not so many irresistible proofs is actuallym just if/than/else story. If/then/else stories do not pass. At least, that is mine experience. Please, correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something important.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
04/10/06 16:43
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP and TOP
Some important points….
At 07:19 PM 10/3/2006, illegale wrote:
In more than one place, Gale disagrees without saying why, at all, not even to specify what specifically is being disagreed with. That an intelligence higher than that of the individual exists? That it is drugged or asleep (i.e., not functioning with full capacity)? That it is (as if) having a bad dream (i.e., wars, seeming powerlessness, etc.)? That sometimes it is a nice dream? (all the beauty of collective action that we experience)?
Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?
Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond theindividual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged orasleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)
Freedom of speech is oppression if there is no freedom not to listen, not to be able to function without wading through what happens when millions of people have free speech rights in a forum. Example: many usenet newsgroups, which gradually became, if unmoderated, extremely difficult to use.
TOP goes fine with filters. In other words one does not excludes theother one. Of course, filtering I am mentioning is only freedom ofselecting relevant informations, not to disable free speech. An exampleof such software is first generation of Tiaktivs forum.Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?
Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannotbe by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may setfilters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.
In another post I explain why a filtered transcript is important. If, to understand a decision made by those active at a certain level, I must wade through myriads of irrelevant posts, understanding becomes quite difficult. Yes, some kind of rating system might accomplish this, but if it is done automatically, under the hood, so to speak, it becomes vulnerable to corruption or systemic error. I prefer to make specific, known people — and chosen by proxy delegation — responsible for filtering. Because such a system is built from the bottom up, individuals do have access with whatever wacky or sound ideas they might generate. Low-level proxies might operate completely open forums for their clients, among other things. The DP system means that members of the organization, all of them who have chosen proxies and been accepted, have access to someone who is, presumably, better connected than they are. Acceptance of a proxy does signify willingness to consider input from the person, to at least read it. If I’m a low-level proxy and there is some person who writes compulsively, and it is too much for me, I can attempt to find a client or other member who is willing to at least look it over; that person becomes the direct proxy of the loquacious client. None of this need be a formal requirement. All that is needed at the formal level is a proxy list which includes three fields: member handle, designated proxy handle, acceptance. The rest is what can be expected to happen in an organization that actually starts using DP.
Note that it is not necessary that DP be formally accepted for decision-making. It would merely be more convenient; instead of recommending that clients vote in a certain way, or otherwise exercise their personal power (which in, for example, standard corporate shareholder rights, would mean naming a formal proxy according to the rules of the corporation, perhaps a top proxy from the DP network), the delegated proxies could vote directly. It’s a small difference.
Any organization which allows members to vote by proxy can thus effectively use Delegable Proxy.
[on why I’m proposing a clean separation between communication and the exercise of power:]
I think the point was missed. The question is rhetorical; politics is, at best, not about how to “make things go our way,” but about finding courses of action which benefit the whole society. There is a subtle but important difference. It becomes obvious in societies which are badly polarized, where “winning” an election can be a total disaster if the minority is thus motivated to rebel. The voters (the majority, or the plurality in systems which allow a plurality winner, such as the U.S., which is even more dangerous) “got their way,” that is, they chose their favorite, someone who perhaps has a platform that appeals to them, or pretends to, which is too often the case, but they lost the ultimate goal, which is a functional society.This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runsquite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics.Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?
Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.Politics is about “making things go our way,” not my way. “Our way” means “the greatest good for the greatest number,” and FAs learn to respect the views of even a single member, continuing debate long beyond the point where a majority can be obtained. Without a means of concentrating debate into a small forum, this would be completely impractical in large organizations. Thus the importance of DP, which theoretically makes it possible to concentrate debate into a small group. not open to all, that is, not directly open. Indirectly, FA/DP is maximally open, it collectively attempts to listen to everyone.
And because it desires to do this, it cannot have an institutional bias, aside from that implied in the membership definition (and registration procedure). An FA/DP organization which is attempting to function as a communications network and consensus-generating mechanism for the whole society, thus, cannot take institutional positions. Once it does, it effectively excludes the minority.
This does not stop it from reporting poll results; and people may do what they wish with a result that is “196,495,782 members, voting directly or by proxy, support Measure A, and 37 members, similarly voting, were opposed.”
FA/DP organizations do make decisions, presumably by majority vote, regarding their own process. The protection against bias that can be introduced by this is the DP system, which makes it quite easy for a proxy to form a new organization that effectively becomes an opposing caucus, with an implied meta-organization which exists if any member from either caucus continues to participate in the other organizations. Only exclusion from self-defined membership blocks this, and thus an organization which is so exclusive cannot be more than a caucus within an open FA.
Hmh. So, what is the key thought that makes your model be working? Whatwe see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existingpolitical paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controlinginformation.
Good politics is. Power politics often is not….
FA/DP is not about the overthrow of the status quo, except to the degree that the status quo depends upon the lack of independent organization of the people. It does not attack existing institutions, period.
Now, this would be, in truth, a revolution. But, unless it is actively opposed with violence, a very gentle one. By definition, it solicits participation by all parties, including the “special interests,” including the oligarchs, and they lose nothing by participating, they only gain the opportunity to establish that their interest is actually the interest of society. If it is.
And most groups believe this, that their way is the best way…..
So, if that can make the World the better place, if thatis what we believe it is (OpenSoruce in software development showed itsefficiency already, and OpenSource is actually completelly compatibleto politics we want to see functioning), than we have to ask ourselves,what are we going to start? New political paradigm, or alternativenetwork based on internet?.
I’d say new political paradigm! Internet is a tool, a device. The true problem is that people believe that they are powerless, so why bother organizing? Besides, every organization that they have known has ultimately failed them, has been corrupted. The entire intellectual class in Ethiopia supported the Mengistu Haile Maryam revolution. Which quickly became one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern history, murdering all opposition. And charging the families of the murdered for the bullets before allowing them to pick up the bodies….
No, we don’t start with the exercise of power. We start with communication, with methods for seeking and finding consensus. This is, in my view, the only way to securely avoid those disasters.
One more thing. About networks. This is theproject pretty many people tried to start. More precisely, if onesentient politican does not succeed in gathering political support, heturns to networking others in order of finding simmilar thinkers towork together or to support those with greater chance.
Yes. But this is generally based upon a particular platform. FA/DP is metaplatform.
Me personaly worked that way a while also. Yet, if you want to succeedin agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join mynetwork. And that is not so easy task.
Indeed, it is quite difficult. However, what is the standard of success? I consider my work successful over the last few years, but it started from nothing. Given that what I’m promoting is a wider understanding of certain concepts, this being the first step, I can see great progress. Delegable Proxy, for example, is now widely recognized among election methods experts as being an “ideal” system. They still think, mostly, that there is no way to get from here to there, because they still think in terms of official, legal systems, power structures. The FA concepts are much harder, they go quite against expectations.
Especially in the moment peopleunder pressure of mass media loose faith in humanity in general. So,what is that you can offer to regular person? Tool where he candelegate proxy? Why should he need such thing in this very moment?
He needs it, but he does not know that he needs it. He is, in Mark’s delicate language, a lemming. He is responsive to the opinions and views of those around him. Get enough people moving in this direction, he will join. Until then, he won’t give it the time of day.
Rationally, everyone should register at
http://beyondpolitics.org/wiki. What does it cost? The slogan is:“Lift a finger, save the world.”
But most people won’t lift a finger. Why not?
I know why, and I also know how to move around this. But it’s a huge topic. It will take time, is the bottom line.
What is needed now is not for everyone to join. What is needed is for one more person to join, and to attempt to understand the concepts. We are at a point where each individual participant is worth a great deal.
As there are more people participating, more again will come. The goal at this point is for enough people to understand the FA/DP concepts that the probability of them being implemented in a “real” organization reaches significance. This could happen at any time. We are working on this, all of us, I’d say, but the inertia is tremendous.
Iunderstand that you have larger picture in your head, but that pictureis simmilar to Marks intention of creating decision making procedurewithouth feeling a pulse of others.
I’m quite aware of the pulse. I’m not trying, at this time, to create a mass movement. I’m trying to create a small organization which can seed larger ones. It would be lovely to see any examples of DP in actual use. Demoex never really tried it sufficiently.
And as long as others did not feelthat pulse, your general thought with not so many irresistible proofsis actuallym just if/than/else story. If/then/else stories do not pass.At least, that is mine experience. Please, correct me if I am wrong orif I missed something important.
The problem at this point is not in convincing everyone. Indeed, I don’t want to convince anyone of anything, except that all this is worth examining. If it is wrong, how? Telling us would be a great public service!
What the problem is now is getting one more active member, someone interested in understanding the concepts and in doing what I’ve been doing: encouraging broader discussion and understanding. There is one, Jan Kok, you saw him here. With three, putting in even a few hours a week, we would have, I believe, the core, and growth would accelerate.
The solution in general is becoming supersaturated. The necessary understandings are beginning to appear everywhere. All it will take, I suspect, is a seed crystal and the whole picture will appear, quite rapidly.
But getting that crystal together is astonishingly difficult. If this were a standard political cause, it would be relatively easy. People get fired up about causes. And then they burn out….
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
13/09/06 15:48
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP and TOP
Dear Lomax
On Monday 11 September 2006 04:36, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP,i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for"participatory?"
TOP stands for Transparent Open Public.In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to itsmembers, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.
OK
The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimatetransformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully openand transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately,as they see fit.
What do you mean by still function privately?
Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it willbecome much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public,and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far moreefficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutuallybeneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and thepublic as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once theyare doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending onthe rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewardsinnovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., itissues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, Ithink that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight!I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?
OK, this is a start. Do you think FA/DP could be further optimized through additional concepts (e.g. TOP, integral decision making process, fishnet organization etc.)?
Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
13/09/06 15:43
[top-politics] Re: FA/DP - some questions & comments
Dear Mark
On Sunday 10 September 2006 18:37, Mark wrote:
-M: Yes, I have formalized most of the Dance-Monkey algorithm on apiece of paper but haven’t posted it yet. SD2-S would have furtherinput constraints on this algorithm.
Good, I’d love to take a look at it.
Great!mS: A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document inwhich you describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki wouldbe a nice place to publish it :-P
-M: I’ll do that!
-M: OK. I was thinking of a wiki with SD2-S constraints.Pimki is similar to a wiki,http://pimki.rubyforge.org/and has network graphing capabilityhttp://www.graphviz.org/This could create collaborative writing projects with hierarchalcontrol.Is this a good idea?
Why not, looks neat to me ;-)
Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
20/07/07 09:52
phentermine
I have loved your site for its useful and funny content and simple design! [url=http://www.1234.com]Bill Geitz 1385903897[/url]
+0
New discussion
Answer
-
-
21/11/06 15:56
[top-politics] Content added to Wiki
I have clarified the mathematics for AD-algo.
Please let me know if something is unclear.
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
21/11/06 16:36
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
A = A* /(dxZ)
Any clean examples?
“Everybody voting yes on the first day”, what happens?
“Everybody voting yes on the first day, then half changing their mind on the second day and voting no”?
Is there no other way to describe “d” but as a constant. Does it correlate with the number of days it would require for a proposal to be accepted if everybody voted yes? (A time buffer of sorts)
Or “d” is a threshold above which should reach the number of “yes” minus the number of “no” divided by the total population?
(yes-no)/population > d => proposition accepted.
Personally I have no troubles with a threshold but I find arbitrary “constants” rather unsettling :)
If d is set at 7, and 1/7th of the population votes “yes” on the first day while nobody votes “no”, will the proposal get passed after 7 days?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
21/11/06 17:34
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
No, “d” is the "democarcy constant.
If it’s 7, and all votes, say 100 persons, yes the first day, second day A* will be calculated:
A* = M* + A = 100 + 0 = 100 And then A = A* /(dxZ) = 100 / (7 × 100 ) = 100/700 = 1/7As you conclude, after 7 identical calcultations, A* = 7/7 = +1 , and the proposal is approved after 7 days.
If the majority would switch, though, a new 7 day minimum period would start.The good thing with “d” is that is can be used to tune the speed of the system in relation to how many of the total number of voters that’s normally attend the votings.
In smaller organizations maybe there have to be a quicker flow, than in a big party running a country.
AD has previously manually adopted the algo and used 7 as factor for “d” with good results. With more active members and more votes to work with, we probably would change to 30 or 60.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
21/11/06 17:52
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?
“d” and “t” which are both time periods.
In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.
“d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for a proposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What do you think?
I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?
For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffers at its center because you consider time periods a critical political factor?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
22/11/06 11:05
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
echarp skrev:
Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?
-Well “d” is the constant, t is the number of calculations in fact. If you want, the repeated calculations can have another period than 24 hours.
In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.
-Yes. Maybe I should clarify and rewrite the formulas with t, t+1 etc.“d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for aproposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What doyou think?
-Yes, that is correct. In the case of no switches in majority.
I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffersat its center because you consider time periods a critical politicalfactor?
-Please read our manifesto. The idea is that the AD algo gives legitimacy to an issue in relation to how many actually are voting for or against.
The idea is to be able to sort out those lunie-proposals or proposals that cannot attract large enough parts of the electors list. This is important both to the individual citizen but also to the all other players in todays political life.
The burden of having to constantly check that no unwanted proposals are voted in is by the AD-algo eased a lot since there will be filtering on this accumulated support. (And of course also on other things such as area of interest, field or author or wahtever)
By the AD-algo all users have only to concentrate on the proposals that are close to be over (with a high accumulated support).In case of an important issue but too slow progress in the vote (due to too few voting on it), the author, or anyone that finds the issue important, can start to build opinion if there are valid arguments. In case of a too narrow issue, maybe a road lightning issue in a village that someone puts up as a proposal in a countrys general parliament, the conclusion is to take the issue to the more appropriate level, such as the county or city parliament. (Just as today) I say parliament but this is meant inside the AD-party in the case of the AD strategy to get elected in all existing parliaments and from within have this own DD way of ruling. (One day maybe some or all parties will stop their traditional work and switch over to the AD-algo..)
As you also conclude, the time factor itself has also a buffer effect. Many DD sceptics are constantly complaining that DD on the internet will lead to hour democracy where all sorts of non-democratic decisions can be taken before even media or more than a few of the voters have seen it at all.
All this is solved by the AD-algo since all interested and media will be able to easily sort out the real threats to socitey and our democracy and to highlight it if things seems to go an unwanted way. When people sees these highlights they can go in and vote against such proposals and also raise their voice and build even more opinion against the proposal. (The rest of the narrow/stupid proposals can be lying for years adn will not bother anyone at all)So, the main reason for the AD-algorithm is to be able to use it for filtration on the proposals that matters and have legimiticy.
BR/
Magnusecharp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
22/11/06 15:04
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:05:35AM -0000, MG wrote:
echarp skrev:
Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Some kind of integral over time?Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?
-Well “d” is the constant, t is the number of calculations in fact.If you want, the repeated calculations can have another period than 24hours.In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.
-Yes. Maybe I should clarify and rewrite the formulas with t, t+1 etc.
OK, I think I have some grasp of what you have in mind. It seems to be what I’m designing into parlement, but for the “t” constant (t being the period of time between each iteration).“d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for aproposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What doyou think?
-Yes, that is correct. In the case of no switches in majority.
Without t, it means participants can simply vote +1/0/-1, when the sum of those votes gets above a given threshold (1/d in other terms), then the proposal is accepted.
(number of yes – number of no)/(number of participants) > 1/d
I have.I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffersat its center because you consider time periods a critical politicalfactor?
-Please read our manifesto.
Is t only there to generate a time buffer?
Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.
What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it less appropriate? Less legitimate?
The idea is that the AD algo gives legitimacy to an issue in relationto how many actually are voting for or against….So, the main reason for the AD-algorithm is to be able to use it forfiltration on the proposals that matters and have legimiticy.
This is what any democratic system would hopefully do :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
22/11/06 16:58
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Somekind of integral over time?
It is an integral though it isn’t a truly continuous calculation but on the contrary has increments at each interval t. So nothing out of this world, and the underlying logic is simple enough for a formula such as the finish condition A = A* /(dxZ) to be explained in plain English (or French or Swedish) and therefore gain a form of legitimation. So I don’t see what you are worried about here echarp, or maybe you meant an issue with actually writing the code for it?
This is going to sound a bit like a late question, but does AD have a system using this algorithm online already? (all I could see now are classic phpBB forums)
Is t only there to generate a time buffer?Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?
Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficient very quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implement delegable proxy. I think this is a process of a similar nature, aiming at prioritizing issues and ensuring a balance bewteen efficiency and legitimacy. In my understanding, it is recognizing that some specialist issues may not gather much attention or interest but may be needed just as well (think of EU directives transposition in national laws), in which case to prevent abuse this constant d would make validation of such proposals with less involvment longer, but would at least avoid for a whole raft of not-so glamourous votes to simply become stuck.
For the purpose of checks and balances, and to solve the drawback of losing legitimacy by passing votes without a majority, such accepted proposals with less than a simple majority should be subjected to special scrutiny in a systematic manner, once voted, so that if a sufficient enough opposition to the proposal was raised it would have to be reconsidered. A sort of ratification if you will.
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous voting would be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a final proposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classic formulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind of range voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuous voting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
23/11/06 14:14
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 03:58:57PM -0000, Serge wrote:
The code will be slightly complex, but it will be even more difficult to manage, because time will be an important part of the process.Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Somekind of integral over time?
It is an integral though it isn’t a truly continuous calculation but onthe contrary has increments at each interval t. So nothing out of thisworld, and the underlying logic is simple enough for a formula such asthe finish condition A = A* /(dxZ) to be explained in plain English (orFrench or Swedish) and therefore gain a form of legitimation. So Idon’t see what you are worried about here echarp, or maybe you meant anissue with actually writing the code for it?For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simply relaunch it a few hours later.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 08:40:56AM -0000, MG wrote:
I’m a engineer, we tend to use math for our work as any tool, CAD,wrench or pencil.But I’m not a math fan, never more than average in math classes.Still I see the benefits of these very simple formulas since they sonaturally improves the simple vote to something rather sophisticated,which is needed if we will succed with the idea of DD.
I’m also an engineer, and I did manage to understand the Navier Stokes equations at one time :) But an equation with 5 elements, 2 of which are constants with no direct relation with reality, seems complex to understand.(To me Condorcet is also complex, too much for a realistic usage)
Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as a threshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated (yes-no)?
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
In English, we could say that a proposal is accepted if its supporters constantly outnumbers its detractors by a certain margin.
This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically “resets” the left part of the equation.
Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is it not logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes so radically takes more time to be approved or refused?
I totally agree.Is t only there to generate a time buffer?Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?
Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficientvery quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implementdelegable proxy.
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous votingwould be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a finalproposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classicformulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind ofrange voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuousvoting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
Who decides if and when a proposal is to be frozen? :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
23/11/06 14:48
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simply
relaunch it a few hours later.
-Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on the original time for summation and redo the division. >(To me Condorcet is also complex, too much for a realistic usage)
-To me too.
Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as a
threshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated (yes-no)?
-Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A* /(dxZ) could be expressed: A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
Which is the same as :the percentage of all yes votes (or no votes if negative) out of all, divided by a small number f.i. 7 or a large f.i.
- , making it 1/7 of the total or 1/356 of the total percentage.
It is quite simple to explain to everyone on the street that if we then repeat this and no more votes are comming in, after 7 (or 356) times of adding another 1/7 (or 1/356) part, the vote is over because then we have 7/7 (or 356/356) =1
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
In English, we could say that a proposal is accepted if its supporters constantly outnumbers its detractors by a certain margin.
-But then there need to be a certain margin, and this migth never occur.
This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically
“resets” the left part of the equation.
Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is it not logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes so radically takes more time to be approved or refused?
-Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, those voted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (which can be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takes time.
In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginning with well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitary arguments of other unfair opinions.
One could also thing of a function where you would be able to filter on majority switches due to this.Who decides if and when a proposal is to be frozen? :)
-Exactly, this is a problem so AD want to keep open the possibility to put up your own proposals without limits.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
23/11/06 17:21
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
Participants can vote and revote at any time, the last one being the valid one. If you relaunch the calculation 10 hours later, you will have to find out the last votes of all participants at the time of the original calculation.For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simplyrelaunch it a few hours later.
Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on theoriginal time for summation and redo the division.
This is not simple SQL, it is not a simple recalculation.
And it has to be done for all proposals.
A proposal would be accepted if:Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as athreshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated(yes-no)?
Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A*/(dxZ) could be expressed:A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / Z and A > d ?
d a fraction of the total populationOr, without division or multiplication:
A=M* + A(index:t-1=former A) and A > d’ ?
d’ a margin or thresholdWhich is the same as :the percentage of all yes votes (or no votes ifnegative) out of all, divided by a small number f.i. 7 or a large f.i.356., making it 1/7 of the total or 1/356 of the total percentage.It is quite simple to explain to everyone on the street that if we thenrepeat this and no more votes are comming in, after 7 (or 356) times ofadding another 1/7 (or 1/356) part, the vote is over because then wehave 7/7 (or 356/356) =1
The accumulation of a difference over time did leave me puzzled. And I’m not sure it is that easy to explain to the layman.
=> (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?
The sum of all (yes-no) votes over days.
Is this equation an equivalent representation of yours?
_t \ / (yes-no) > d ’-0
Is that “reset” a required part of your system?This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically"resets" the left part of the equation.Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is itnot logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes soradically takes more time to be approved or refused?
Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, thosevoted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (whichcan be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takestime.In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginningwith well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitaryarguments of other unfair opinions.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
24/11/06 13:20
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on the
original time for summation and redo the division.
Participants can vote and revote at any time, the last one being the
valid one. If you relaunch the calculation 10 hours later, you will have
to find out the last votes of all participants at the time of the original calculation.This is not simple SQL, it is not a simple recalculation. And it has to be done for all proposals.
-Well, if the system goes down so no calculation can be made, the possibility to vote should also go down?
But if not, it is only reuse the day before value and send out a message to re-vote.
But you could also wait to next day and use the latest ballots from all if they are existent. (If so, there could be a rule that the vote is proplonged with the time the sytem has been down.)
The same could happen to any internet based voting system, that it breaks down.
-Sorry for my writing about 60%, it should only be: The formulas A* = M* + A and A = A* /(dxZ) could be expressed: A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZWell, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A*
/(dxZ) could be expressed:A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ
A proposal would be accepted if:
A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / Z and A > d ? d a fraction of the total population
Or, without division or multiplication:
A=M* + A(index:t-1=former A) and A > d’ ?
d’ a margin or threshold-Maybe…I’m not a matemathician…what is your angle?
The accumulation of a difference over time did leave me puzzled. And I’m
not sure it is that easy to explain to the layman.
-The only complex part as I see it, is how thing are affected in the case thats normal; not all are voting yes, but only say 54%. In this case the accumulation to A* will go slower. The day when there is exactly 54% yes-votes and 46% no, the addition to A will be exactly 54% of the addition if we had 100% yes votes, meaning a slower progress.
The sum of all (yes-no) votes over days.
Is this equation an equivalent representation of yours?
_t \ / (yes-no) > d ’-0-I think so yes..
Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, those
voted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (whichcan be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takestime.In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginningwith well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitaryarguments of other unfair opinions.
Is that “reset” a required part of your system?
-Sorry for another error of mine… It’s the other way around, the accumulated support should be set to zero in order to avoid that the voting time streches out too much just because there is a switch of majority..
It can be díscussed if this resetting is needed but for practical reasons we think it’s a good feature.
The argument for it is that the issue is well known by the voters and majority switches might happen many times in even issues, 49/51 to 51/49 etc. This might lead to very long voting times thus impractical.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
24/06/07 01:32
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! dxrjaegvnqn
+0
-
24/11/06 16:35
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
Hey,
About recalculations, couldn’t a duplication step be included ahead of the counting? This would ensure a snapshot of the voting position remains available for reference should a malfunction / delay occur.
About formulas and making d and the process of accumulation over time more intellegible, if I get this right, the basic logic is that for proposals with a high proportion of the population voting and agreeing, a proposal can be passed fairly quickly. Equally, if not many people are voting or agreeing, then a proposal will drag on.
Explaining this in layman’s terms therefore seems pretty straightforward. You could define d=7 as corresponding to a period of one week for ratification of a vote if 100% of the population votes in favour. Accordingly, as the proportion of participation / support drops, the time for ratification increases in proportion, which ensures no loonie proposal can be passed discreetly and quickly without proper participation and scrutiny. That would probably make it more understandable than calling it a democratic constant.
The argument for it is that the issue is well known by the voters andmajority switches might happen many times in even issues, 49/51 to51/49 etc. This might lead to very long voting times thus impractical.
In regards to close calls without a clear majority, wouldn’t it actually make sense for these to drag on until a proposal is satisfactory enough for a larger support to gather and tip the balance?
Regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
23/11/06 09:40
[top-politics] Re: Content added to Wiki
Echarp, Serge:
Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Some
kind of integral over time?
-I’m a engineer, we tend to use math for our work as any tool, CAD, wrench or pencil.
But I’m not a math fan, never more than average in math classes. Still I see the benefits of these very simple formulas since they so naturally improves the simple vote to something rather sophisticated, which is needed if we will succed with the idea of DD.This is going to sound a bit like a late question, but does AD have a
system using this algorithm online already? (all I could see now are classic phpBB forums)
-We have used in manually before the PHPbb-time. (Now we just have simple majority over one month of voting period.)
And we have tested a system where the algo was implemented. Sorry to say, the programmer got a job and felt tired..He aslo needed feed back from other non existent programmers.
Currently we try to get the programming going by anyone interested.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it less
appropriate? Less legitimate?
Serge:-Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficient
very quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implement delegable proxy. I think this is a process of a similar nature, aiming at prioritizing issues and ensuring a balance bewteen efficiency and legitimacy. In my understanding, it is recognizing that some specialistissues may not gather much attention or interest but may be needed just
as well (think of EU directives transposition in national laws), in which case to prevent abuse this constant d would make validation of such proposals with less involvment longer, but would at least avoid for a whole raft of not-so glamourous votes to simply become stuck.
For the purpose of checks and balances, and to solve the drawback of losing legitimacy by passing votes without a majority, such accepted proposals with less than a simple majority should be subjected to special scrutiny in a systematic manner, once voted, so that if a sufficient enough opposition to the proposal was raised it would have to be reconsidered. A sort of ratification if you will.
-Couldn’t have put it better myself!!
Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous voting
would be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a final
proposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classic formulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind of range voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuous voting to orient deliberations towards consensus?
-The most effective way once the system in place for governmental use is to run it on relativley “ready” proposals.
This will probably be the only way of getting the proposals voted upon in reasonable volumes.
So we envison use of document evolution, where a wiki could be used for democratic version handling.
When more or less a consensus is reached about a proposal worked out by a number of engaged citizens, the document is turned into a proposal to vote for.
In this way time is won since there are much debate already written, possible to read and comment by all voters not been engaded before. But also the plain and sinple proposal from the little man should have a chance.
So it will be up to the oroginator of a proposal to decide whether he wants to engage more than himself in the work of writing good proposals.
Some will, some not, and evolution will make all proposals better and better until they finally can be voted upon within a reasonable amount of days. (If you feel frustrated because of slow progress of your vote, you either try to raise more opinion, or rewrite you proposal so it can attract more.)-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
09/06/06 05:05
[top-politics] Smartocracy
From:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/smartocracy-hicss2007.pdf-———————————————————————————————————— Smartocracy:
Social Networks for Collective Decision Making
Marko A. Rodriguez
Daniel J. Steinbock
Jennifer H. WatkinsABSTRACT
Smartocracy is a social software system for collective decision making. The system is composed of a social network that links individuals to those they trust to make good decisions and a decision network that links individuals to their voted-on solutions. Such networks allow for a variety of algorithms that convert the link choices made by individual participants into specific decision outcomes. Simply interpreting the linkages differently (e.g. ignoring trust links, or using them to weight an individual’s vote) provides for a variety of outcomes fit for different decision making scenarios. This paper will discuss the Smartocracy network data structures, the suite of collective decision making algorithms currently supported, and the results of two collective decisions regarding the design of the system.-——————————————————————————————————————— Comments please.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
09/06/06 20:02
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
Thank you Mark for sending this to the group.
It is nice thing to notice that the whole work is avaliable to the public.
BTW, why did you send it, actually? Is there any thing we could differ about this work and ideas it mentions?
ATB;
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
09/06/06 21:35
[top-politics] Smartocracy + SD2
G: Thank you Mark for sending this to the group.
M: :)G: It is nice thing to notice that the whole work is avaliable to the
public. BTW, why did you send it, actually?
-M: I like it because it seems SD2 compatible.(Almost any system can work under SD2, but Smartocracy seems to seemlessly be integratable with SD2 methods and philosophy.)
G: Is there any thing we could differ about this work and ideas it mentions? ATB; Gale
-M: Its not a complete system. Whenever a decision is made, a new trust network is formed – this creates only a temporary trust-nucleus.
By contrast, if it operated under SD2, a stable body of generalists would be formed also, who would be experts in asking the right questions and would know how to frame issues in their correct context. This body would also oversee the physical implimentation and upgrades of the Smartocracy system.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
09/06/06 23:17
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy + SD2
Actually it is the same network having different outputs due to different inputs. I am saying that as long as I consider social network one and only and what I am looking for are just mechanisms that empower it as long as bottom up decision making process needs one.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
09/06/06 23:49
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy + SD2
illegale wrote:
G: Actually it is the same network having different outputs due to different inputs.
-M: Same and different – the mix would differ based on the voter turnout.
I think that effectively it would be the ‘same’ network.G: I am saying that as long as I consider social network one and only and what I am looking for are just mechanisms that empower it as long as bottom up decision making process needs one. ATB, Gale
-M: OK, agreed and understood.
I will also add that SD2-based general rank would be good for organizing an administrative hierarchy.
So SD2 would be ‘above’ and ‘below’ a Smartocracy system.
Cool? Comments anyone?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
10/06/06 13:15
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy + SD2
It might be, for an example for selection of top
judge/arbiter/president or something like that. Yet, I am not willing to create models that need pretty tough legitimation process in a moment we do not have event network to make it.ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
11/06/06 17:29
[top-politics] Screenshot
illegale wrote:
G: It might be, for an example for selection of top judge/arbiter/president or something like that. Yet, I am not willing to create models that need pretty tough legitimation process in a moment we do not have event network to make it. ATB, Gale
M: Screenshot: -—————————————————————————————————————————————————-Name ___________________________]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]
Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Pass [ ]Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]
Just filling out one’s name makes one a registered voter and a candidate.
And filling out ANY point in the issue section makes one an active voter on the issue.The idea here is to give maximum choice and opportunity to the voter.
What do you all think?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
13/06/06 17:32
[top-politics] Re: Screenshot
M: Screenshot: -—————————————————————————————————————————————————-Name ___________________________]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]
How many people do you want to be in the trustee board? 1[ ], 3[ ], or 5[ ]? (Chaired by those with the highest general rank.)
Issue XYZ
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Pass [ ]Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]
Just filling out one’s name makes one a registered voter and a candidate.
And filling out ANY point in the issue section makes one an active voter on the issue.
The idea here is to give maximum choice and opportunity to the voter.
What do you all think?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
13/06/06 19:35
[top-politics] Re: Screenshot
Do we need it right now? If not, when we gonna need it?
ATB;
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
13/06/06 20:00
[top-politics] Re: Screenshot
G: Do we need it right now? If not, when we gonna need it? ATB; Gale
-M: Smartocracy seems like the best current operational model, which can be improved with SD2 and TOP.
So I am not proposing it for TOP specificly.
I am proposing it as an improvement for Smartocracy.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
13/06/06 20:06
[top-politics] Re: Screenshot
Do you see anybody interested in Smartocracy around?
It seems to me group has died. Probably no interest in group projects.
So, what might be interest, if not group projects, are comments of exact things, as long as there is more then plenty of non checked models that are not too interesting for discussions any more. People got tired of them, if I may notice.
ATB;
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
13/06/06 20:19
[top-politics] Re: Screenshot
illegale wrote:
G: Do you see anybody interested in Smartocracy around?
-M: You? I would like to give Karl and Markus time to comment.G: It seems to me group has died. Probably no interest in group projects. So, what might be interest, if not group projects, are comments of exact things, as long as there is more then plenty of non checked models that are not too interesting for discussions any more. People got tired of them, if I may notice. ATB; Gale
-M: Smartocracy is the most promising thing that I have seen, and I want to give it a chance.(If few/no one here is interested, this is then revealing about the group.)
And it is advanced enough where few modifications by an INDIVIDUAL could yield a distinct program.
And I just e-mailed them and told them that I want access to their site and software.
Hopefully they will be responsive.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
14/06/06 00:14
[top-politics] Re: Screenshot
There are two things I like to seperate. Visions and strategies.
We as a group as I can notice do not have big problems with visions, that are actual motivators for an action and directions, but with strategies.
I do not see how Smartocracy can become important in this part , so as long as I miss this part, I have to say I am not interested into one of actual dozens of informatical models based on network measiring.
Of course, as long as I miss some stuff as everybody does, if you find something promising about strategy part, please give us some notice.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
14/06/06 06:49
[top-politics] Re: Screenshot
illegale wrote:
There are two things I like to seperate. Visions and strategies.We as a group as I can notice do not have big problems with visions,that are actual motivators for an action and directions, but withstrategies. I do not see how Smartocracy can become important in this part , so aslong as I miss this part, I have to say I am not interested into one ofactual dozens of informatical models based on network measiring.Of course, as long as I miss some stuff as everybody does, if you findsomething promising about strategy part, please give us some notice.ATB, Gale
-M: How about this?:A political party organized with SD2-Smartocracy.
People would choose those they trust the most as general trustees, and they would choose the most competent people for specific issues.
It could be global scale or it could be for a village, or any scale inbetween.
And since its built with Ruby on Rails, it is on the most versitile and user friendly OpenSource platform that I am aware of.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10/06/06 00:25
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy + SD2
From: http://smartocracy.net/
-————————————————————————————————————————- […] Each participant gets an equal number of votes (initially 10) for each decision to be made, to be exercised not by them but by their proxies. That simple change, from voting to delegating your vote, creates meritocracy in an equitable, natural way. The most highly respected participants are by definition on more people’s lists.Any unexercised votes (e.g. if a participant doesn’t have time or doesn’t feel qualified) cascade to the proxies of the non-voter, until they hit an actual voter, who exercises them all.[…]
-—————————————————————————————————————————--M: People, sounds like Emmanuel’s accumulative delegable proxy system. I also think that they are using PageRank like I told Emmanuel that he needed to.
Emmanuel, I told you so. :-P
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
09/06/06 23:15
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy + SD2
Markus,
How easy would it be to convert/translate/compile this software to Ruby on Rails?:
http://smartocracy.net/The idea here is to make meritocratic decision making software as user friendly as possible and in the best language possible.
(Not directly related, and to continue from above, I said:)
-M: if it operated under SD2, a stable body of generalists would be formed also, who would be experts in asking the right
questions and would know how to frame issues in their correct context. […]-M: To add, SD2-director choices could be the voters’ default delegates on issues.
This one point alone would seemlessly integrate SD2 with Smartocracy.This integration alone would satisfy me(a complete system, not just an umbrella(SD2 ideally is an umbrella, but could be used alone)) but an idea that I would add would be default SD2 reps – an indescisive voter would be made SD2 compliant(therefore could become a rep) by sending voting power to gaps in the rank distribution curve.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
12/06/06 20:45
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy + SD2
M: Markus, How easy would it be to convert/translate/compile this software to Ruby
on Rails?: http://smartocracy.net/ The idea here is to make meritocratic decision making software as user friendly as possible and in the best language possible.
-M: Markus, disregard. This site is written with ‘Typo’, which appears to be a Ruby on Rails blogging implimentation.
But I am still trying to find the Smartocracy software to download.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
12/06/06 20:11
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
Here are more thesis papers:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf-—————————————————————————————————————— Simulating Network Influence Algorithms Using
Particle-Swarms: PageRank and PageRank-Priors
Marko A. Rodriguez Johan Bollen
Abstract
A particle-swarm is a set of indivisible processing elements that traverse a network in order to perform a distributed function. This paper will describe a particular implementation of a particle-swarm that can simulate the behavior of the popular PageRank algorithm in both its global-rank and relative-rank incarnations. PageRank is compared against the particleswarm method on artificially generated scale-free networks of 1,000 nodes constructed using a common gamma value, = 2.5. The running time of the particle-swarm algorithm is O(|P| + |P|t) where |P| is the size of the particle population and t is the number of particle propagation iterations. The particle-swarm method is shown to be useful due to its ease of extension and running time.-—————————————————————————————————————-M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf -—————————————————————————————- Advances Towards a
Societal-Scale Decision-Support System
Marko Antonio Rodriguez
ABSTRACT
Collective intelligence has been defined as the ability of a group to provide more effective solutions to problems than could be otherwise provided by any of its individual members working alone. Social structures are the means by which humans are able to synergistically combine their efforts to provide high quality solutions to the problems facing the group. Over time, these structures have grown in scale and complexity to encompass political institutions that span vast landscapes of heterogeneous individuals to militaristic forms capable of orchestrating effective large-scale behavioral feats. With computer and network technologies, the potential for more advanced societal-scale information-processing systems is now possible such that a general-purpose societal-scale decision-support system may begin to be
envisioned. Unlike typical group decision-support research, a societal-scale system is faced with both a heterogeneous user population and problem-space. In designing such a system it is important to understand how the ’collective’s mind’ is modeled via a shared mental map of the group and how the ’collective’s mindset’ is maintained over fluctuating participation levels of its constituent members. Methods in both
problem-space partitioning and group preference modeling are presented within a theoretical and design framework to further the potential development of a societal-scale decision-support system capable of providing synergistically derived solutions to any representable problem. In concert, all of these ideas provide the foundation for the implementation of societal-scale decision-making system in a real-world context.-————————————————————————————————————————-M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf -—————————————————————————————————————————- Advances towards a General-Purpose Societal-Scale
Human-Collective Problem-Solving Engine
Published in the International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Proceedings, IEEE SMC, 2004
Published in the 23rd European Annual Conference on Human Decision Making and Manual Control Proceedings, 2004
Marko A. Rodriguez
Computer Science Department
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA, U.S.A
okram@soe.ucsc.edu
Abstract – Human collective intelligence has proved itself as an important factor in a society’s ability to accomplish large-scale behavioral feats. As societies have grown in population-size, individuals have seen a decrease in their ability to actively participate in the problem-solving processes of the group. Representative decision-making structures have been used as a modern solution to society’s inadequate information-processing infrastructure. With computer and network technologies being further embedded within the fabric of society, the implementation of a general-purpose societal-scale
human-collective problem-solving engine is envisioned as a means of furthering the collective-intelligence potential of society. This paper provides both a novel framework for creating collective intelligence systems and a method for implementing a representative and
expertise system based on social-network theory.-——————————————————————————————————————————— comments please.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
16/06/06 13:12
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
-Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss, we have limited amount of time..
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
17/06/06 00:50
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
MG wrote:
-Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss,we have limited amount of time.
-M: They are obviously supporters of RD. Find where thay are critical of DD, and we can discuss that.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
03/07/06 17:40
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf
-Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking in the internet?
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf
-OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero.
And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’t argue with that either.
What are you takling about???http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf
-Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?
All I see in these thesises is that the current system with representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual level is better.
Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static. No news here.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
04/07/06 20:48
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
MG wrote:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf-Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking inthe internet?http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf
-M: No, its not PageRanking the internet, its PageRanking human networks.mG: -OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero. And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’t argue with that either. What are you takling about???
-M: Marko Rodriguez(the writer) is a participant on Smartocracy. As soon as I get admission to the group, I will be challenging him on this point. He is a techie who doesn’t understand republicanism.
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdfmG: -Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?
-M: Because its not DD, its RD.
mG: All I see in these thesises is that the current system with representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual level is better. Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static. No news here.
-M: Yes, SD2-Smartocracy would be participatory.
- There would be an option for a direct vote.
- There would be an option to choose delegates.
- If no delegates are chosen, delegate representation would be defaulted to one’s general trustee choices.
- If no general trustees are chosen, the algorithm chooses trustees.
Since leaders/representitives are needed even in a DD system, the only difference here is in the centrality algorithm of choice.(I said from the begining that the centrality algoritm is the main issue.)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
10/07/06 10:55
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
Ju can call AD whatever you like but to mee smartocracy looks a lot like AD. Point.
Let us know your success with Rodriquez…-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
11/07/06 00:33
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
MG wrote:
Ju can call AD whatever you like but to mee smartocracy looks a lotlike AD. Point.
-M: ‘looks a lot like AD’ – vague. Parlement/EC-D looks a lot like AD.
Any system under SD2 ‘looks a lot like AD’.So? Now lets talk about important details:
Initally, Smartocracy only selected general reps with PageRank.(like SD2)
Then it was changed to have specific issues with reps. My proposed SD2-Smartocracy would have both, with even a DD-like input option.Well? Do you like this?
mG: Let us know your success with Rodriquez…
-M: OK.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
17/06/06 00:46
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
-M: They are obviously supportes of RD.
Find where they are critical of DD.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
16/06/06 14:08
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
Hey Mark. Would you eventually paste these articules you are quoting to wiki in order to create nice base for such projects?
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
17/06/06 00:47
[top-politics] Re: Smartocracy
illegale wrote:
Hey Mark. Would you eventually paste these articules you are quoting towiki in order to create nice base for such projects? ATB, Gale
-M: OK, unless someone posts thes articles there first.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
18/12/06 15:16
[top-politics] Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
Done some work with the user interface and change the look & added some more icons..
Screenshot avaible below.
https://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=115046
Still on target to release the alpha-release later this month.
Pether
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
19/12/06 18:29
[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Done some work with the user interface and change the look & added somemore icons..Screenshot avaible below.https://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=115046Still on target to release the alpha-release later this month.Pether
Hey Peter!Do you have public filters in your software integrated?
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
19/12/06 19:11
[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
Hi Gale,
Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:Do you have public filters in your software integrated?
Not sure what you mean with public filters, but don’t have any filters implemented except security filters
for the web requests.Only admin screens an a few others that will be protected by security.
Pether
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
19/12/06 22:37
[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
So, how are you going to enable transparent communication on the larger scales with no filters? Or you base your software on top-down hierarchy?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
20/12/06 13:51
[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
So what do you mean with filters ? Still don’t understand your question.
Pether
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
20/12/06 15:34
[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
I assume your software is developed for large organizations with hundreds of members. I assume your software is developed for bottom-up, grassroots principle where elected leaders are direct product of ad hoc group decision which is possible thanks to internet.
OK. There is probably too many assumptions, that are even not important ones. What I find important is: Is your party based on rigid, hard to diminish hierarchies or on fluid ones where no one can be to certain? If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enable mass communication of hundreds of members without having too much non-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?
I understand that I have no clue what exact political model you had in mind when you started developing this software, so maybe, if these questions are too abstract, we could start in that way?
ATB;
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
27/12/06 16:10
[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
I assume your software is developed for large organizations withhundreds of members. I assume your software is developed for bottom-up,grassroots principle where elected leaders are direct product of ad hocgroup decision which is possible thanks to internet.
It’s developed almost purely as a propaganda project with the main objective to increase political awareness and increase survelliance of existing politicians.
OK. There is probably too many assumptions, that are even not importantones. What I find important is: Is your party based on rigid, hard todiminish hierarchies or on fluid ones where no one can be to certain?If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enablemass communication of hundreds of members without having too muchnon-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?
I currently don’t have any issues like the ones you describe above, normally I prefer to solve problems when I actually got them. But would be interesting to know how filters would solve this problem ?
I understand that I have no clue what exact political model you had inmind when you started developing this software, so maybe, if thesequestions are too abstract, we could start in that way?
A paradigm shift to some sort of direct democracy, and I belive that a portal for political parties that can lets them make decisions online can result in many different poltical models.
Kind regards
Pether-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
21/12/06 04:31
[top-politics] Re: Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible
At 09:34 AM 12/20/2006, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enablemass communication of hundreds of members without having too muchnon-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?
Obviously, you don’t, that is, if everyone can present everyone else with a message, and the group is large enough, everyone is overwhelmed with traffic.
There are obvious solutions in common use, but we think that it is very important to develop solutions that don’t depend so much on a benevolent dictator, i.e., a group moderator.
Moderators there will be, but, as it is stated in the AA Traditions, “Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern.” If the whole group could walk and quickly reassemble, a rogue moderator would do no harm.
So we envision hierarchies of lists, if it is mailing lists we are talking about.
There are base lists, with relatively few subscribers, few enough that traffic does not overwhelm subscribers. These base lists may be moderated by proxies; there would be many of them in a large organization. Essentially, you can name a proxy and the proxy admits you to his or her list. And maybe even to a list above that, i.e., the list of your proxy’s proxy. This latter list you may read, but you don’t have the right, necessarily, to post to it without approval.
There is a top level list in an organization. Actually, there can be more than one, but I won’t go into that complication. A top level list would typically be open for subscription by any member of the organization. It may conduct polls and any member may vote in them. But the list is moderated; the only people who can post without moderation are high-level proxies, proxies representing a certain minimum number of members, directly or indirectly. There may also be other list members who may post, having been granted the privilege by vote, without being high-level proxies.
The point is that this high-level list is rather closely moderated. If members with posting privileges abuse them, any member who likewise has such privileges may object. Standard Robert’s Rules meeting process has procedures for this…. and members can lose their privileges; they can lose them administratively (i.e., as a decision ad-hoc by a moderator) and it remains democratic if they have the right of appeal. Appeal is to the whole “meeting,” but it might be on a separate list maintained for that purpose. Generally, if the organization is TOP, members would know if censorship was going on. It is not censorship, per se, which is the problem, it is hidden censorship, censorship without due process.
Standard democratic process exists for all this; the trick is to make that process scalable; and delegable proxy is the only solution I’ve seen which does not involve excluding large groups of people from participation and from representation. In theory. We have not seen large-scale DP yet. Soon, hopefully!
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20/11/06 14:10
[top-politics] TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
Seems to me it makes much more sense as long as can without any speculation state what is right ad what is wrong.
After all, heterarchy (and true democracy is heterarchy) always needs code of action in order of being effective.
Seems to me we should look at such definition, not in a definition of some fictive model that does not exist. This thing, this code of action would empower us and enable distinction based on regular person, which means no place for compromitation of such code.
ATB;
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
21/11/06 13:20
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
But, as you say:
After all, heterarchy (and true democracy is heterarchy) always needs code of action in order of being effective.Being effective in this case means having a code of action on all actors in politics.
And if we take away organizations, it will be very easy for individuals to hide behind organizations..Or how do you mean..?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
21/11/06 17:29
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
You can easily set code of action where you deny possibility of hiding behind organization.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
21/11/06 17:38
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
But isn’t there a need for people to be able to rely on that a complete organization is behaving according TOP?
How want’s to check up all members of a party for instance? And how shall I value that 30% of the members in a party is TOP-certified?illegale skrev:
You can easily set code of action where you deny possibility of hidingbehind organization. ATB,Gale
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
21/11/06 19:03
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
Magnus. How many politicians are in AD, except you? How many of those are willing to run TOP? If all are, than I suppose the whole organization can accept such a policy all of you obey to.
Of course, you can accept those who are not willing to run TOP, but in that case AD is not TOP anymore.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
22/11/06 11:37
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
This is my point, AD should be an organization to rely on. I would probaly have no problem having all members to sign that the will obey TOP.
A more pratical way of doing it is to write the TOP rules into the statutes of the party.
I will propose that the day there is a certification on the table. I see the certification as a quality mark and by such, there cannot be changes constantly to it, improvements has to be decided upon in steps, after TOP-discussions ofcoruse.
And after such decision of improvemnt or change, there need to be a certain time for the before certified organizations to implement it and rewrite their statutes or other important rules.
If the organization do not implement the new TOP, the certification will be cancelled after this implementation time.
Just as it works with ISO9000 (yes,yes we engineeers hate it…but in the democary business I really see the need for certification) or similar certifications in the industry.-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
24/11/06 17:54
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
MG wrote:
This is my point, AD should be an organization to rely on.I would probaly have no problem having all members to sign that thewill obey TOP.A more pratical way of doing it is to write the TOP rules into thestatutes of the party.
AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.I will propose that the day there is a certification on the table.I see the certification as a quality mark and by such, there cannot bechanges constantly to it, improvements has to be decided upon in steps,after TOP-discussions ofcoruse.And after such decision of improvement or change, there need to be acertain time for the before certified organizations to implement it andrewrite their statutes or other important rules.If the organization do not implement the new TOP, the certificationwill be cancelled after this implementation time.Just as it works with ISO9000 (yes,yes we engineeers hate it…but inthe democary business I really see the need for certification) orsimilar certifications in the industry.
Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become certificator?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
27/11/06 12:56
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.
-But since all citizens are allowed to get membership and to decide in all issues, this would meann to TOP-crtifty all citizens participating..
More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become
certificator?
- :-) Why not? Or if we form a more self standing organization, called
TOP.
The idea of that is that all TOP certified all over the world could participate and together withhold (keep) the values and basic ideas of TOP.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
04/12/06 19:39
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
MG wrote:
Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are politically active right now to empower them with this certification. So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have different products too.AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.
-But since all citizens are allowed to get membership and to decide inall issues, this would meann to TOP-crtifty all citizensparticipating..More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.
Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment :-) ATB,Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become
certificator?- :-) Why not? Or if we form a more self standing organization, calledTOP.The idea of that is that all TOP certified all over the world couldparticipate and together withhold (keep) the values and basic ideas ofTOP.
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
05/12/06 23:52
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.
Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to
make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are politically active right now to empower them with this certification. So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have different products too.
-Well, there is no need to certify all members expressing their will in an AD-system.
For delegates or more powerful adminstrators there is indeed. But all working inside an AD-organization on a higher level that zero (citizen) should be obliged to follow TOP-principles. The only difference I see is that you rely more on todays politicians and organizations and I more on a competing organization, aimed to take ower in the future.
So, sure, there can be different options in this, too.Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment
-Yes! Shall we now form a formal, international organization TOP, to which all certified organizations can connect and be connected as long as they fulfill TOP as upheld and defined by this international organzation?
Can Tiaktiv be this international org?-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
10/12/06 23:28
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
MG wrote:
Indeed. And it should be, actually. We are far from the moment when we sould reach concensus based on experience and wider knowledge.More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.
Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to
make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested inpolitics in this very time and I want to enable those who arepolitically active right now to empower them with this certification.So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will havedifferent products too.-Well, there is no need to certify all members expressing their will inan AD-system.For delegates or more powerful adminstrators there is indeed.But all working inside an AD-organization on a higher level that zero(citizen) should be obliged to follow TOP-principles.The only difference I see is that you rely more on todays politiciansand organizations and I more on a competing organization, aimed to takeower in the future.So, sure, there can be different options in this, too.
Maybe we should reach Stallman to help us out about creating such organisation. The problem I see in this very moment (in Tiaktiv) is the statute that has too many gaps not to be easily overtaken by the people that might be far from TOP. As long as this problem is not solved, I am not willing to link organisation directly to any decision we might find correct.Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment
-Yes!Shall we now form a formal, international organization TOP, to whichall certified organizations can connect and be connected as long asthey fulfill TOP as upheld and defined by this internationalorganzation?
Can Tiaktiv be this international org?
We in Tiaktiv are oriented towards creating structure for TOP politics. In that manner it might be good think. Yet, Tiaktiv as formal organisation is rather weak and I do not trust to its form. So, I hope we will get into contact to Stallman (he developed GNU licence) to see how could we svolve our issue in the best manner we could.
BTW. In this very time I believe we do not need any organisation for development of any TOP definition. For an example, Tiaktiv might support one definition AD develops, or vice versa. I believe this way might solve the potential problem.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
- :-) Why not? Or if we form a more self standing organization, called
TOP.
-
-
22/11/06 16:08
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
The birth of political ISO certification. Talk about what a kick in the anthill that would be…
Joke aside, I agree that a certification makes sense for organizations. And I must say I find the idea of certifying individuals quite incongruous. Most if not all certifications of individuals today are done following some kind of training and standardized form of exam or assessment (thinking of doctors, lawyers, techniciancs, assermented public officers, etc).
A method that could be used to certify someone – a political figure I assume – as TOP is something I have a lot of trouble imagining. Where do you start? How can you be sure you are not only being given access to the records that go in favour of the applicant? Would it take a long time (high costs likely if so) to audit an applicant and after that to check compliance? Gale, could you give a description of how you see this in practical terms?
Best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
24/11/06 18:08
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
Serge wrote:
The birth of political ISO certification. Talk about what a kick in theanthill that would be…Joke aside, I agree that a certification makes sense for organizations.And I must say I find the idea of certifying individuals quiteincongruous.
Hmh. I am thinking about manifest, not certification. Thing that explains why I as a politician accept TOP in my work.Most if not all certifications of individuals today aredone following some kind of training and standardized form of exam orassessment (thinking of doctors, lawyers, techniciancs, assermentedpublic officers, etc).
In some time, it makes sense to make trainings for TOP politicians, as long as todays politician schools are based on regular politics where use of Internet is practically not existent. Doctors who teach young politicians in those schools regularly ignore internet. I do not blame them, as long as free info flow means completely new approach which eliminates big part of traditional doctrine.
A method that could be used to certify someone – a political figure Iassume – as TOP is something I have a lot of trouble imagining. Wheredo you start? How can you be sure you are not only being given accessto the records that go in favour of the applicant? Would it take a longtime (high costs likely if so) to audit an applicant and after that tocheck compliance? Gale, could you give a description of how you seethis in practical terms?
So. Why do I think about individual, not organization? In that way we do not have to make no speculations. All I need is my gut and feeling of what is right and what is wrong. I can write manifest for my name. It will be probably the same thing as other people who understand TOP philosophically will adopt. I know that some people who agree with that only at declarative level wont accept it and that is actually the point, as long as it is very popular among politicians to think that people are cattle/lemmings who do not deserve truth who can not respect truth, so that todays politics is just an image of what works fine. And these same people on declarative level are for free speach, freedom of information, public has the right to know and similar stuff. When I get oriented to myself only and what i feel, I do not have to think about these speculations of what other people think, which is rather importnat thing, I belive.
How does it look like? Like regular manifest. Saying what is not existing right now, what I am pissed off at, what I believe it is important and why I do things in a way I do them. Of course, to make some better thing, stuff needs to be passed through many more brains, but this is the start that makes sense to me. It has nothing to certification houses, but mere explanation why TOP anyway? What I want to do with TOP, why do I work in a TOP manner even when it is not so opportunistic and why it pays off.
In that way some other “maybe” thinkers might make final decision and become TOP which is rather important thing.
ATB,
GaleBest regards,Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
25/11/06 14:20
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
Hey Gale,
Emmanuel knew about this already, so maybe you do too, but is the following pledge what you had in mind?
http://www.vpsystems.net/Nevada/?page_id=50
by the way, from what I could gather, I think this guy has lost to a republican.
Regards,
Serge-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
04/12/06 19:40
[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation
Thx Serge.
I did not now for him.
ATB,
Gale-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
25/11/06 22:52
[top-politics] collective action management system / inroads
S: […]but is the following pledge what you had in mind?http://www.vpsystems.net/Nevada/?page_id=50by the way, from what I could gather, I think this guy has lost to arepublican
-M: *R*epublican not *r*epublican. example: I am a republican but not a Republican.
Proper noun vs. common noun.S: Regards, Serge
-M: I haven’t promoted this before, but I do like the idea of individual politicians using SD2-S.
In American politics(or other non-parlimentary systems), this would probably be quite useful for the Speaker of the state or federal house or senate. Citizens Forum? Maybe it could be a parallel to City Council, State Legislature, or Federal Legislature.
People , from the beginning I have promoted SD2/SD2-S as not a replacement of current political processes, but as a collective action management system that can be used for political purposes among many other purposes.
And the political purposes are meant to suppliment and parallel current constitutional processes without the need of change of these.Inroads are:
- SD2 for political parties
- SD2-S for municipal government and above, via sympathetic elected politicians
- SD2-S for large scale administration, via sympathetic appointed politicians
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
05/12/06 22:26
[top-politics] Little report from Croatia
Hello everybody.
In last time things where rather intense in Croatian cyber politics. Yet, I have to notice it is 2:0 for forums of Croatia :-)
First thing.
Faculty of philosophy with about 5 000 students has rather developed internet community that estimates about 800 nicks with 100 or more posts. Some profesors post there, and they can se open critics from virtual users. At that internet community, as I do remember, all initiatives that came from students, came form that forum excatly. There was a typical example, when history teacher wrote at media some rather suspicious article about Izrael last occupation and when the topic was started, people started to wonder about credibility of that teacher, so he had to come up to that forum
-