[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

illegale — 2006-12-04 19:34:32+0100

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 *).

Read more… / Lire plus…

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;
Gale

ATB,
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 -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

illegale — 2006-12-04 18:18:15+0100

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.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> 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

[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9

echarp — 2006-11-24 19:59:23+0100

> 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 :)