Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 24/11 19:37 +2 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 04/12 19:34 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 04/12 18:18 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 19:59 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 19:32 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 18:20 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 13:12 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 22/11 21:23 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 22/11 20:14 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 22/11 20:13 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
Latest posts
- 04/12 19:34 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 04/12 18:18 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 19:59 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 19:37 +2 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 19:32 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 18:20 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 13:12 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 22/11 21:23 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 22/11 20:14 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 22/11 20:13 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9
-
echarp wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 11:39:36PM +0100, illegale wrote: > Electoral lists are not really useful right now. > > They will be as the number of participants grow, and the signal/ratio of > moderation itself decrease. They are a kind of meta moderation. > > Do you need that right now? How many participants do you envision if you > started using parlement? How long for that number to reach beyond the > hundreds?
Let me explain a little bit better what I find important in ELs.
Regular software with filters is based on ONE dominant view only. The example is slashdot where your quality is being directly quantitized. In that moment much of the info is being lost as long as for you and your set of values might not be the same as mine, so quantification method can go good for only one of us. Not both of us.
This all means that some “majority” is molesting minorities at such sites.
What I see that EL offer is bottom-up hierarchies of info flow without some majority merits in between. Same thing as when you use p2p and you see that someone listen the same music you like. You wont look at top40 lists to find things you like, but you will look at the people/proxies that fit you the best.
In this way, the info flow/communication process is being highly optimized and no-one can feel bad about it, but quiet contrary. You have free communication tool. Such thing is not existent in slashdot, nor any software that is based on direct quantification of quality (filters we have right now at parlement are working in this way).
In politics, this is highly important as long as such software offers easy legitimation and grouping based on free bottom-up hierarchies with highly optimized info flow. This might attract others much more likely than software where you by default have to obey to some virtual majority, or better to say ownership of such tool (slashdot is constantly adopting new karmic quantification methods that owners see proper, aka put subjective feeling before objectiveness).
Now. What I am looking for right now? In this very moment, there is site called www.pollitika.com where blogger Mrak gathered more than 20 other bloggers who write about Croatian politics. Yet, some of these members see an urge to adopt not just blogs, but other communication tools (forum the most important, wiki, etc.) in order of creating one strong attractor of politically constructive people.
I would like them to offer such tool that can optimize communication flow better than todays software solutions and I believe that EL would be just that. All in all, there is an existing gravity that we might eventually use for further growth and if things would work fine, we might even succeed.
As long as this new approach of heterarchical filtering is up to my knowledge not existing in this very moment, there might be some difficulties that we are not aware of. Sooner we start working on that, sooner we will be in position to solve bugs ad offer effective software.
Of course, this is how I see this thing, it might be I misinterpreted some things, or did not take in consideration but had to.
> Do you envision another use for electoral lists, which I’ve forgotten > about?
Did I?
> Parlement is not used much right now. So I would rather concentrate on > simpler features which will be directly useful. For example, a moderated > mailing list will allow more people to subscribe and vote, yet only > see the posts deemed worthy by a number of other participants.
How I understand parlement is that in this very time it does not offer some attractive new thing. It has good fundamental base that allows heterarchies and disables power of admin which is essential. Yet, this part is not product for wider circle of consumers.
ATB,
Gale> 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
-
First, we do agree on the advantages of electoral lists. I consider them necessary in a democracy, just as you do.
But, I would rather start using parlement with what already exists. I hope it is already a good starting point.
Of course I want to add other things, electoral lists, PGP signatures, delegations, are just the most important, and complex.
> How I understand parlement is that in this very time it does not offer > some attractive new thing. It has good fundamental base that allows > heterarchies and disables power of admin which is essential. Yet, this > part is not product for wider circle of consumers.
A big feature already complete is the P2P part: a parlement instance can work as a node in a cluster of parlements!
That makes it a distributed blog accessible by mail and democratically moderated by its users.
Electoral lists will probably not be technically useful before a critical mass.
Look at “digg”, which parlement is close to in many ways, do you think you would need/use EL if there were less than 10 votes on each item?
EL and P2P signatures are a great way to secure a distributed democracy, but as of now I would rather test and use what already exists. And only work on what will be directly useful.
> Now. What I am looking for right now? In this very moment, there is > site called www.pollitika.com where blogger Mrak gathered more than 20 > other bloggers who write about Croatian politics. Yet, some of these > members see an urge to adopt not just blogs, but other communication > tools (forum the most important, wiki, etc.) in order of creating one > strong attractor of politically constructive people. > > I would like them to offer such tool that can optimize communication > flow better than todays software solutions and I believe that EL would > be just that. All in all, there is an existing gravity that we might > eventually use for further growth and if things would work fine, we > might even succeed.
EL won’t really be useful to them unless they have hundreds of votes on their posts and comments.
BTW, I’m willing to administrate any parlement instance they would use. And/or they can directly use http://leparlement.org, they just need to start a thread with a given subject and there, they will have a forum.
Their forum url will look like http://leparlement.org/subject
I can also create it in another part of the site, so that it is not accessible from the main page (like http://leparlement.org/fr or http://echarp.org/blog).
> As long as this new approach of heterarchical filtering is up to my > knowledge not existing in this very moment, there might be some > difficulties that we are not aware of. Sooner we start working on that, > sooner we will be in position to solve bugs ad offer effective > software.
As far as I know, a distributed forum accessible by mail and democratically moderated does not exist yet. Not only that, but that forum is due to implement two features (EL and PGP signatures) that will make it a reliable democratic system, and delegations to scale to any number of participants. Isn’t that enough?
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
-
echarp wrote:
> A big feature already complete is the P2P part: a parlement instance can > work as a node in a cluster of parlements! > > That makes it a distributed blog accessible by mail and democratically > moderated by its users. > > > Electoral lists will probably not be technically useful before a > critical mass.
Mailing lists and similar stuff are from mine point of view only fundamentals, not a product. “Democratically” moderated is something we already have at many other software solutions.
I want to see new product that has obvious use and quality superiority if I want to promote it around. In this moment parlement has good fundaments and has service that already exists. In this moment parlement is offering nothing revolutionary. Sorry.> Look at “digg”, which parlement is close to in many ways, do you think > you would need/use EL if there were less than 10 votes on each item?
What I can see is that you want users before you have a product. That is not a way things work. OK. Maybe some other users see use of decentralized software (yet, news groups work that way, no?) or “democratic” voting (yet, slashdot and whole bunch of karmic software works that way, no?) be a product. If that is so, than I will have to face the fact that I did not see this “revolution” due to some of my wrong presumptions. If that is not so, than you will have to develop product first.
ATB,
Gale> EL and P2P signatures are a great way to secure a distributed democracy, > but as of now I would rather test and use what already exists. And only > work on what will be directly useful. > > > Now. What I am looking for right now? In this very moment, there is > > site called www.pollitika.com where blogger Mrak gathered more than 20 > > other bloggers who write about Croatian politics. Yet, some of these > > members see an urge to adopt not just blogs, but other communication > > tools (forum the most important, wiki, etc.) in order of creating one > > strong attractor of politically constructive people. > > > > I would like them to offer such tool that can optimize communication > > flow better than todays software solutions and I believe that EL would > > be just that. All in all, there is an existing gravity that we might > > eventually use for further growth and if things would work fine, we > > might even succeed. > > EL won’t really be useful to them unless they have hundreds of votes on > their posts and comments. > > BTW, I’m willing to administrate any parlement instance they would use. > And/or they can directly use http://leparlement.org, they just need to > start a thread with a given subject and there, they will have a forum. > > Their forum url will look like http://leparlement.org/subject > > I can also create it in another part of the site, so that it is not > accessible from the main page (like http://leparlement.org/fr or > http://echarp.org/blog). > > > As long as this new approach of heterarchical filtering is up to my > > knowledge not existing in this very moment, there might be some > > difficulties that we are not aware of. Sooner we start working on that, > > sooner we will be in position to solve bugs ad offer effective > > software. > > As far as I know, a distributed forum accessible by mail and > democratically moderated does not exist yet. Not only that, but that > forum is due to implement two features (EL and PGP signatures) that will > make it a reliable democratic system, and delegations to scale to any > number of participants. Isn’t that enough? > > 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
-
Hmh. What do others think about it? It might be I am actually lonely runner in understanding of potential of parlement.
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
-
Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum. So the interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we should concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again it’s the eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t interest users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions and criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.
I would suggest, in regards to content, that if feeds could be inserted in the forum coming from relevant city councils, parliaments, organizations, on their debates and upcoming legislation under deliberation, it could become a whole lot more relevant to a lot of people. Especially if online collaboration, wiki-like could be integrated not only for proposals but for posted documents/attachments. A xwiki meets parlement type of thing (how about no sleep for two years Emmanuel?). Add to this a robust method of voting, and the whole thing should already be well under way.
However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more programmers, isn’t it?
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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
-
+1
> Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To > my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum.
Spot on, it is another forum!!! And a mailing list. And in time a chat room.
It aims to be a combination of all linear methods, what I call a “linear” method being a communication where you can add content but not remove any. A Usenet forum is such a thing, same with a newspaper, a blog or a meeting. A wiki is not (or it will need serious thinking to make it so), but there could be links to such a beast :)
> So the interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we > should concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again > it’s the eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t > interest users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions > and criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.
Definitely!
Being a mailing list, a parlement instance could just duplicate any number of other mailing lists there are on the web. Trouble is that any answer or vote made directly on parlement will not be forwarded to the original mailing list (this is what is done with top-politics, see http://leparlement.org/top-politics *).
> However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So > the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more > programmers, isn’t it?
There are PGP signatures to work on, chat and irc connections, ordering by activity instead of creation, image uploading in a post (one can already send an image or any other file in a mail), automatic database creation when an instance is set up, P2P cluster automatic creation, speed optimisations, design, colors…
And lots and lots of testing!
- there can’t be answers because it would require the parlement’s participants to also exist on the google group
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
-
echarp wrote:
> Spot on, it is another forum!!! And a mailing list. And in time a chat > room. > > It aims to be a combination of all linear methods, what I call a > “linear” method being a communication where you can add content but not > remove any. A Usenet forum is such a thing, same with a newspaper, a > blog or a meeting. A wiki is not (or it will need serious thinking to > make it so), but there could be links to such a beast :)
OK.
> > So the interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we > > should concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again > > it’s the eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t > > interest users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions > > and criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough. > > Definitely! > > Being a mailing list, a parlement instance could just duplicate any > number of other mailing lists there are on the web. Trouble is that any > answer or vote made directly on parlement will not be forwarded to the > original mailing list (this is what is done with top-politics, see > http://leparlement.org/top-politics *).
OK.
> > However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So > > the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more > > programmers, isn’t it? > > There are PGP signatures to work on, chat and irc connections, ordering > by activity instead of creation, image uploading in a post (one can > already send an image or any other file in a mail), automatic database > creation when an instance is set up, P2P cluster automatic creation, > speed optimisations, design, colors…
OK. > > And lots and lots of testing!
OK.
So, what do these OKs have with request for ELs? What I need to notice is that here comes Markus who whishes to start the whole process on with new aproach. As long as there is not product I need and as long as I do not notice your will to work harder on that before there is hudreds of users of leparelemnt, I have to back up Markus’s wish in order of having more chance to get a product I need. Why is that happening? What should I do in order of optimising the work of this group?
ATB;
GaleATB,
Gale> * there can’t be answers because it would require the parlement’s > participants to also exist on the google group > > 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
-
Serge wrote:
> Well I agree that for the moment Parlement isn’t that exceptional. To > my non-specialist eyes, it’s looks like just another forum. So the > interest for me is in the content, and that’s probably what we should > concentrate on to interest users to join early on. Then again it’s the > eternal problem of the chicken and the egg: a system won’t interest > users if it’s not advanced enough, but without contributions and > criticism, it’s difficult to advance the system enough.
In this very time I can push parlement to that new gravity center in Croatian political cyberspace. Yet, for this I need a product. There is several people who might easily recognise the usefullnes of this transparent, open media based on common equality.
Yet, I need a product as I said.
> I would suggest, in regards to content, that if feeds could be inserted > in the forum coming from relevant city councils, parliaments, > organizations, on their debates and upcoming legislation under > deliberation, it could become a whole lot more relevant to a lot of > people. Especially if online collaboration, wiki-like could be > integrated not only for proposals but for posted documents/attachments. > A xwiki meets parlement type of thing (how about no sleep for two years > Emmanuel?). Add to this a robust method of voting, and the whole thing > should already be well under way.
These users wont come up to parlement and say, hey lets develop it. They are consumers, they want use. At least I see this that way. It might be I am wrong, of course.
> However, if it’s only Emmanuel developping it’s way too much work. So > the real need if all we discuss here is to become a reality is more > programmers, isn’t it?
Regular thing is that people get interested in software in the moment they find use of it, so they become attracted in developing it further Maybe this software is usefull for these people and if that is true, software developers will come indeed.
Yet, the example of Markus is that he is rather starting new project based on software base he prefers, than working on a concept he would need to adopt first. And that is what regularly happens before turning point (wideer affirmation of software). I am afraid, it is up to software originator to create basic product and after that the rest is history :-)
ATB,
Gale > > 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
-
-
-
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 12:12:14PM -0000, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
> echarp wrote: > > A big feature already complete is the P2P part: a parlement instance can > > work as a node in a cluster of parlements! > > > > That makes it a distributed blog accessible by mail and democratically > > moderated by its users. > > > > > > Electoral lists will probably not be technically useful before a > > critical mass. > > Mailing lists and similar stuff are from mine point of view only > fundamentals, not a product. “Democratically” moderated is something we > already have at many other software solutions. > I want to see new product that has obvious use and quality superiority > if I want to promote it around. In this moment parlement has good > fundaments and has service that already exists. In this moment > parlement is offering nothing revolutionary. Sorry.
A decentralized and democratically moderated forum is not new? Can you point me to any such thing? One where everybody can post and where each post is also a forum and a mailing list?
You want a bullet point in a marketing sheet, I’d rather have things that will be directly useful and you can still sell the fact that will be implemented that bullet point and more.
Parlement is a project, a free software one, its potential is also important.
> > Look at “digg”, which parlement is close to in many ways, do you think > > you would need/use EL if there were less than 10 votes on each item? > > What I can see is that you want users before you have a product.
Do you think that what I have done is worse zero? :(
> That is not a way things work. OK. Maybe some other users see use of > decentralized software (yet, news groups work that way, no?) or > “democratic” voting (yet, slashdot and whole bunch of karmic software > works that way, no?) be a product. If that is so, than I will have to > face the fact that I did not see this “revolution” due to some of my > wrong presumptions. If that is not so, than you will have to develop > product first.
I would love you to test and use parlement right now. It is already usable, and in some ways it offers more than SlashDot and Usenet combined. Even more than kuro5hin and digg.
EL are not a feature people will use before a critical mass. To sell parlement on that non-feature will bring a risk of discontentment.
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
-
-
-
At 09:37 AM 11/22/2006, Gordan Ponjavic wrote: >As long as this new approach of heterarchical filtering is up to my >knowledge not existing in this very moment, there might be some >difficulties that we are not aware of. Sooner we start working on that, >sooner we will be in position to solve bugs ad offer effective >software.
I agree. This is why I suggest starting with Free Associations, where the association itself is not moving power. Rather, all it is doing is enhancing communication, and with enhanced communication, it is possible for caucuses to form which do move power.
It is relatively fail-safe. FAs also fission easily, in theory and in practice (and they also merge easily) so the best practices can evolve.
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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
-
EL and FA have something in common indeed :-)
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
-
-
Gale,
I see your point. But on the flip side, don’t you think only seeing what people who think alike have noted as interesting is very likely to entrench people in what they think and ultimately harm the debate? Wouldn’t a good use of your proxies, who would be people who think alike and keep you informed, coupled with a majority-style ranking, bring a better compromise?
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
-
There are merely consumers who want decent debate and “researchers” who are willing to check someones credibility, test it, promote it. So, if consumer wants to see/test reputation, it is only one/two hits he has to do. Of course, lazy ones will be lazy ones, yet this laziness is measured in months of common sense delay, which is not long time in political process.
Anyway, I have nothing against majority-style ranking, see that as common most easily recognized tech for evaluating common opinion, so it wont harm anything in process of choosing proxies, I believe.
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
-
-
