Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 23/11 23:11 +3 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 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
- 25/11 21:43 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 11:42 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 03:59 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 01:58 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 01:04 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 01:01 +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
- 25/11 21:43 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 11:42 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 03:59 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 03:56 +0 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 01:58 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 01:04 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 25/11 01:01 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
- 24/11 19:59 +1 Re: Parlement Version 0.9
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Parlement Version 0.9
-
Hey,
Following all the discussion about the secrecy of votes, the discussion seems to have slowed down. Taking the last leparlement’s version, I believe we should agree on the features needed so we can have a well-defined goal.
Currently implemented features (taking leparlement as benchmark)
- threaded forum
- RSS feed for latest posts and most popular posts
- login (optional password/email)
- each post is also a forum
- each post is also a mailing list
- server replication (in real time by mail)
- spam filtering (basic)
- votes: -1, 0 or +1 – to evolve towards range voting
- avatars
- personal display filter
- long posts shortened for display
- Personal deliberation / voting record publicly accessible for each user
Upcoming features
- posts can be positioned
- voucher for anonymous pseudonym
- Electoral lists
- PGP signatures
- Delegations (proposed: category-specific and not only global or punctual)
- irc interaction
- individual votes life span
- web page updated in real time (chat)
Additional features discussed/proposed:
- Tagging of discussion subject by posters / readers
- Categorization / prioritization based on tagging and post ranking (can be useful to most elements of the system including delegation, personal record, and debates)
- Integration of public information to help online deliberations. Possibly a feed reporting laws under discussion and latest official reports from the relevant elected body (city council, parliament..) by categories of issues to all these involved in discussions on it.
- Making supporting evidence available for deliberations (let users attach documents to a discussion – documents that should be tagged and evaluated just as any other feature)
- Put safeguards against cluttering in place to ensure deliberations remain efficient. In particular, give initial approval rating to a post according to the number of clients represented by the person writing the post so as to ensure access to everyone who may want to speak, while making speech through a proxy and consensus-building a more efficient way of communicating.
Please add any other features you may want to discuss, and let’s examine the ins and outs of proposed features. A summary can be found and enriched on the wiki:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP_System_DefinitionBest 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
-
Serge wrote:
Hey, Following all the discussion about the secrecy of votes, the discussion seems to have slowed down. Taking the last leparlement’s version, I believe we should agree on the features needed so we can have a well-defined goal. Currently implemented features (taking leparlement as benchmark) – threaded forum – RSS feed for latest posts and most popular posts – login (optional password/email) – each post is also a forum – each post is also a mailing list – server replication (in real time by mail) – spam filtering (basic)
-M: Rock’n!
-M: This is very, very fucked-up. It is too direct and encourages too much immediacy - people can vote before discussion.- votes: -1, 0 or +1 – to evolve towards range voting
Emmanuel can have more of an V-V-V type of system with SD2-S kinds of constraints.
With an innately RD system like SD2-S,
there is the guarantee of scalability.
The two main differences between V-V-V and SD2-S:- V-V-V’s has a single proxy vs SD2-S multiple proxies,
- V-V-V has a manditory DD overide of RD,
by contrast SD2-S gives the voter RD and/or DD,
this makes a more interconnected trust network.
No one has yet justified this manditory override from a philosophical nor a technical perspective.
This lack of manditory override is the main defining feature of SD2-S compared with competing DP systems.
- avatars – personal display filter – long posts shortened for display – Personal deliberation / voting record publicly accessible for each user Upcoming features – posts can be positioned – voucher for anonymous pseudonym – Electoral lists
-M: With SD2-S, all voters would be on this list.
- PGP signatures – Delegations (proposed: category-specific and not only global or punctual) – irc interaction – individual votes life span
-M: Interesting.
- web page updated in real time (chat) Additional features discussed/proposed: – Tagging of discussion subject by posters / readers – Categorization / prioritization based on tagging and post ranking (can be useful to most elements of the system including delegation, personal record, and debates) – Integration of public information to help online deliberations. Possibly a feed reporting laws under discussion and latest official reports from the relevant elected body (city council, parliament..) by categories of issues to all these involved in discussions on it. – Making supporting evidence available for deliberations (let users attach documents to a discussion – documents that should be tagged and evaluated just as any other feature) – Put safeguards against cluttering in place to ensure deliberations remain efficient. In particular, give initial approval rating to a post according to the number of clients represented by the person writing the post so as to ensure access to everyone who may want to speak, while making speech through a proxy and consensus-building a more efficient way of communicating. Please add any other features you may want to discuss, and let’s examine the ins and outs of proposed features. A summary can be found and enriched on the wiki: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP_System_Definition Best regards, Serge
-M: I will give more comments later.
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
-
- votes: -1, 0 or +1 – to evolve towards range voting
-M: This is very, very fucked-up. It is too direct and encourages too much immediacy - people can vote before discussion. Emmanuel can have more of an V-V-V type of system with SD2-S kinds of constraints.
ec: Again, please just acknowledge our opposition: I want everybody to have the possibility to directly participate, you don’t.
-M: SD2-S is particapatory democracy, so everyone can participate. Everyone can submit proposals and everyone can vote. And everyone is a rep candidate.
Also there are DD features where the decision constraints are set, and proposals can be held in deliberation.ec: And you have given no arguments on why “people” should be removed from politics.
-M: Agreed. Nor have you, yet you want to limit people’s choice, such as not giving the individual voter the choice to have both DD and RD inputs simultaneously.
ec: Not only that, but at the beginnings of this group you were repeating over and over, an analysis based on wrong information (the French “terror” being a Direct Democratic thing…).
-M: I presented other examples too.
ec: Saying and repeating that people are lemmings is not an argument.
-M: But it is a founding fact that justifies republicanism.
With an innately RD system like SD2-S, there is the guarantee of scalability. The two main differences between V-V-V and SD2-S: 1. V-V-V’s has a single proxy vs SD2-S multiple proxies, 2. V-V-V has a manditory DD overide of RD, by contrast SD2-S gives the voter RD and/or DD, this makes a more interconnected trust network. No one has yet justified this manditory override from a philosophical nor a technical perspective.
ec: Lomax has explained it to you in clear words: it is not mandatory, it is each participant’s choice.
-M: Meaning that if the voter chooses DD, this manditorilly overrides RD.
Or if the voter chooses RD, this manditorilly overrides DD. Again, for the thousandth time: WHY?
By contrast, with SD2-S, the voter can have both RD and DD inputs - infact, this is prefered.- avatars – personal display filter – long posts shortened for display – Personal deliberation / voting record publicly accessible for each user Upcoming features – posts can be positioned – voucher for anonymous pseudonym – Electoral lists
-M: With SD2-S, all voters would be on this list.
ec: This means that you do not understand what is the point of electoral lists. In one word: legitimacy.
-M: Since SD2-S is a more participatory system than competing systems, everyone is a representitive candidate. This is legitimate because it encourages participation.
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
-
And you have given no arguments on why “people” should be removed from politics.
Agreed. Nor have you, yet you want to limit people’s choice, such as not giving the individual voter the choice to have both DD and RD inputs simultaneously.
I think I have, and in fact you did acknowledge it. Well, you said yes then no (how coherent of you).
Direct participation is more potent, more legitimate, than indirect one.
Not only that, but at the beginnings of this group you were repeating over and over, an analysis based on wrong information (the French “terror” being a Direct Democratic thing…).
I presented other examples too.
Oh, like a study which actually destroys Representative Democracy and has no relationship with DD?
What examples against DD do you really have? I have plenty against RD.
Saying and repeating that people are lemmings is not an argument.
But it is a founding fact that justifies republicanism.
Oh, now it is a fact? By what miracle, your saying?
You think anybody will consider you an authority on that? I don’t. And I claim that nobody will!!!
With an innately RD system like SD2-S, there is the guarantee of scalability. The two main differences between V-V-V and SD2-S: 1. V-V-V’s has a single proxy vs SD2-S multiple proxies, 2. V-V-V has a manditory DD overide of RD, by contrast SD2-S gives the voter RD and/or DD, this makes a more interconnected trust network. No one has yet justified this manditory override from a philosophical nor a technical perspective.
Lomax has explained it to you in clear words: it is not mandatory, it is each participant’s choice.
Meaning that if the voter chooses DD, this manditorilly overrides RD. Or if the voter chooses RD, this manditorilly overrides DD. Again, for the thousandth time: WHY?
Because in a simple system, unlike what you have in mind, we care about decisions. A participant can directly vote if he so choose. His choice.
No invention like multi proxy, generalist, specialist, default proxy, deliberation threshold (your excuse of a direct participation), director, rank.
In fact, your byzantine system is complex by design. You want it to be difficult and remote.
Not only is your online personality disagreeable, but your design is purposefully inelegant!
By contrast, with SD2-S, the voter can have both RD and DD inputs - infact, this is prefered.
And they can fill a ten element form with inputs he won’t understand and care about.
It’s simple, there are decisions to be taken and we are designing a democratic decision making system. Who is most legitimate to take those decisions?
Well well well, the demo of course.
And what will be more legitimate, a direct or an indirect participation?
Direct of course.
You’ll probably invent “facts” against Direct Democracy. Any one we can verify and which won’t be a misinterpretation due to your lack of reading skills?
Anything but baseless assertions?
- Electoral lists
With SD2-S, all voters would be on this list.
This means that you do not understand what is the point of electoral lists. In one word: legitimacy.
Since SD2-S is a more participatory system than competing systems, everyone is a representitive candidate. This is legitimate because it encourages participation.
Your direct participation is limited to the deliberation threshold, this is a pathetic excuse of DD.
To say “more participatory” while proposing such a byzantine and remote system designed so that the “common people” won’t directly take decisions is a flagrant incoherence. Stupid.
Or will you dare to claim that indirect participation is more participatory than direct one???
A decision making system like democracy is about decisions. You want to remove people from them, to concentrate on a few chosen directors, this is contrary to the very purpose of democracy: rule of the demo.
Your suspicions, despites and insults toward the common people make you an enemy of democracy.
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
-
Hey,
Obviously mark’s stance on citizens is questionnable for many here. But isn’t this the whole point of the system, that because we do disagree in sometimes important ways, we might be able to come to practical solutions that offer a greater deal of flexibility?
So I hope I am not being rude by suggesting this, but would it be possible for you to just collaborate on whatever is possible while keeping disagreements constructive and focused on the practical features and functionnalities of a TOP system?
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
-
About parlement, right now I’m working on a feature that has been asked by friends of mine: “moderated mails”.
Currently you can filter the web page and you can also receive and respond by mail to all posts, I will add a threshold to only receive the mails that get above it.
“Democratically moderated mailing lists”.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 01:10:53AM -0000, Serge wrote:
Obviously mark’s stance on citizens is questionnable for many here.
Definitely, yes. But what is worse is the online personality he displays.
Yet I think everybody has a personal story, and everybody can change for the best if given the opportunity to.
Around a beer, or online in an irc chat, mark could possibly learn to appreciate democracy. But we have to do with what we have.
(democracy, rule by the demo)
But isn’t this the whole point of the system, that because we do disagree in sometimes important ways, we might be able to come to practical solutions that offer a greater deal of flexibility?
What of the deep disagreements and disagreeable personality traits?
So I hope I am not being rude by suggesting this, but would it be possible for you to just collaborate on whatever is possible while keeping disagreements constructive and focused on the practical features and functionnalities of a TOP system?
You are not being rude.
Trouble is that the disagreement is profound, and the arguments he propose amount to nothing but insults (“lemming”).
Yet he also pushes for a technical system with parts which are very much alike lomax’s and even mine’s. Shame shame shame.
What do you think?
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
-
Hey Emmanuel!
As long as my personal interest is to use first software that is not being rude to minorities and in the same time enables TOP communication without off topic, spam and similar stuff, I have to ask you can you give me a rough estimate when are you going to start working on electoral lists?
We have discussed several times about it, I believe you do understand my concern and need for some exact data as long as time is passing away and nothing happens in this field.
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
-
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 11:39:36PM +0100, illegale wrote:
As long as my personal interest is to use first software that is not being rude to minorities and in the same time enables TOP communication without off topic, spam and similar stuff, I have to ask you can you give me a rough estimate when are you going to start working on electoral lists?
We have discussed several times about it, I believe you do understand my concern and need for some exact data as long as time is passing away and nothing happens in this field.
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?
Do you envision another use for electoral lists, which I’ve forgotten about?
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.
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:
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,
Galeecharp – 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,
GaleEL 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
--—-—----—-—-—---&#
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-