Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization
-
Dear Serge
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 05:33, Serge wrote:
> Dear Markus and members of the group, > > Most points seem valid, but I hope you won’t take offense if I point > out it’s not a very engaging read.
No offense at all ;-) It wasn’t very engaging to write also, but it has to be done.
> I do believe that the medium is > (half) the message, and that for TOP to have any kind of traction with > the public, its message must be absolutely as concise and clear as > possible.
I agree!
+1
> > As you point out, and rightly so, my definition of TOP has elements > missing. Surely some elements would need to be added, and others > removed . However, expanding the level of detail beyond what consitutes > the core of TOP for this introductory statement would be a mistake for > two main reasons: > – While exceptions and numerous other things do need to be addressed, > bundling everything in the same document will only make it unpalatable > to anyone new to the discussion. > – While we can all agree on the fundamental meaning and goals of TOP > politics, we need to be cautious about trying to include details from > the start, as these details will probably be the points on which we > disagree rather than the essentials – and uselessly delay agreement on > these essential points.
I agree, this was an error of me to define everything in detail in only one document. But still, details have to be defined in special documents which should be referenced in the main one (so it should be understand that they are an integral part of it). Maybe we should take a law-writing approach e.g. use statements like “this issue is defined in a special document”, or “if in doubt consult special elaboration” etc.
> > Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the same > thing. I’ll add that transparency is similar too. In my understanding, > the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency), > openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It is > interesting to notice that controlling either information, system > infrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methods > of hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems. So how about > creating a dedicated reference document for each of the three founding > TOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and not > try to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies? >
This was allready been discused so I won’t engage a new discussion here, but let me just tell that I like the pretty definition of TOP you stated ;-)
Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1
