[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

illegale — 2006-12-10 23:28:25+0100

MG wrote:

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.

Indeed. And it should be, actually. We are far from the moment when we sould reach concensus based on experience and wider knowledge.

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?

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.

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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Magnus — 2006-12-05 23:52:57+0100

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?

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

illegale — 2006-12-04 19:40:50+0100

Thx Serge.

I did not now for him.

ATB,
Gale

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

illegale — 2006-12-04 19:39:54+0100

MG wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment :-) ATB,
Gale

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Magnus — 2006-11-27 12:56:14+0100

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.

[top-politics] collective action management system / inroads

Mark Rosst — 2006-11-25 22:52:35+0100

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

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Serge — 2006-11-25 14:20:27+0100

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

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-11-24 18:08:36+0100

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,
Gale

Best regards,Serge

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Gordan Ponjavic — 2006-11-24 17:54:32+0100

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?

[top-politics] Re: TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Serge — 2006-11-22 16:08:48+0100

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