What can 4 of us actually do?

[illegale]

In this very moment, there is 4 of us willing to join forces in order
of establishing better, more democratic political system. Though, this
is pretty abstract vision. What we need in this very time, in order to
create clear orientation of our ground initiative is to articulate
straight vision of what is up to us to do actually?

What can 4 of us actually do? I believe it is obvious that realisation
of our great visions is actually pretty far ahead, yet I do think that
we can do our little part that will support our global visions every
single one of us has. Vision we will all fully share with no need for
non necessary further articulations.

And this part is pretty important part that will actually guide us
forward. 4 of us. We need a vision for 4 of us. Not for millions of the
people. We need clear things that enable focus of our own energies in
order to create and grow.

So. what can we actually do?

[illegale]

Suggestion:

1. Support for the creation of the global public trust network among
individuals who share progressive political ideas based on IT.

Why?

Many concepts we are discussing over are not established at all, not
even among those who are actually keen for this. The public overall we
are oriented to in this very time can be numbered in thousands in my
best expectations which is politically irrelevant number.

Those initiatives that share sometimes very simmilar thoughts could
penetrate to wider public pretty easy if going TOGETHER armed with
shared knowledge we all gain during our voyages if we fine enough will
to articulate exact concepts, terms, visions and other ideas that are
the base for growth of any political organisation.

In this very moment, we actually do not have articualted concepts nor
leadership that enables birth of relevant political organisation
(powerfull ones). Though, together we can do it much faster and much
better.

So, as long as this part is not something new, meaning there are many
of organsiations wanting to do the same thing, I propose a little
distinction between the way of realisation of this potential group
vision.

It is in SUPPORT of the trully democratic initiatives (having TOP
intregrated in their process as grant for their political orientation)
and support for their global integration, meaning our mission be the
support, not leadership, as long as this is the part that lacks in this
very moment.

Please, do not comment this part untill we see what are the other
options we have, what are the visions and missions we can work on?

ATB,
Gale

[illegale]

PS. This topic is open for comments and suggestions of everyone no
matter of organisation he belongs to.

[echarp]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to apply all the concepts of
transparency and open participation we talked about. I believe it is
*required* in order to generate any sort of trust in any online
political process.

It's required, like air to breath. All "die bold" kind of machines are
stupid black boxes open to all sorts of malversations. Let's hope they
die a horrible death, we may be able to help that :)

There are other lines I thing could be worth investigating, in France at
least, I heard there are prizes designed to encourage transparency. This
was the consequence of some NGO which were rather indelicate with the
funds they had to manage. The worst one was a charity organism which
funded cancer research, the president, rather famous because he actually
personally was present on TV show to promote his worthy cause, stole
incredible amounts of money for his own profit.

I think the prize was called "crystal prize" or something like that.
Ever heard about that?

They probably have criteria to determine how transparent an organisation
is. Worth looking at.

I also remember another group of online people, Free Software guys, who
launched an initiative to define how "open" a software and its
development and community are. Maybe worth looking at?

So guys, what are actually the elements required to define if a group
follow the top principles or not?

* meeting minutes?
* participants?
* processes?
* budgets?
* goals?

I also have troubles with the definition of what *ought* to be public
and what _can_ remain private.

How much efforts are required to be *actively transparent* or to simply
allow a kind of *passive transparency*. Those are two concepts I also
would like to explore.

echarp - http://leparlement.org v0.6 (you can now vote!)

[lpc1998]

 

Maybe, we can begin small by determining our group's definitions (which may differ in some ways from our individual definitions) of what is meant by democracy or TOP. And we can also discuss the pros and cons of the delegated vote.

 

So which topic shall we discuss first?

 

In the event of a tie in the votes and since there are four of us, Gale being the leader shall have the casting vote. What we decide will still be open to future review and voting, if there is a need for it or when there is a better argument in the future or when our group increases in size. We shall discuss and decide on the necessary procedures when the time comes.

 

Best Regards

Eric Lim

[echarp]

+1

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:48:13AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> Maybe, we can begin small by determining our group's definitions (which may
> differ in some ways from our individual definitions) of what is meant by
> democracy or TOP.

Yes, this is something important.

> And we can also discuss the pros and cons of the delegated vote.

The point of view being direct against indirect participation?

> So which topic shall we discuss first?

Both? :)

> In the event of a tie in the votes and since there are four of us, Gale being
> the leader shall have the casting vote. What we decide will still be open to
> future review and voting, if there is a need for it or when there is a better
> argument in the future or when our group increases in size. We shall discuss
> and decide on the necessary procedures when the time comes.

The voting process could be continuous. That means that any body
accepted in the electoral list will have his votes counted, but also
that any vote can be changed any time.

What do you think of the -1/0/+1 process to show if you accept or reject
something?

echarp - http://leparlement.org/top-politics

[lpc1998]

 

+1

 

[Eric]:

Okay, so we have three topics for discussion:

 

1  What does democracy mean to you?;

2  What does TOP mean to you?; or

3  What are the pros and cons of the delegated vote?

 

I vote for Topic 2. As there are a total of 4 votes, the first topic that gets 3 or more votes shall be the topic selected for discussion. If none gets voted, then we shall have Round 2 of voting and vote on the first 2 topics that get the highest number of votes. If there are 2 topics with the same number of votes at the 2nd place, then Gale shall have the casting vote.

 

 

[echarp]:

"The voting process could be continuous. That means that any body
accepted in the electoral list will have his votes counted, but also
that any vote can be changed any time."

 

[Eric]:

The continuous vote may not be appropriate for the voting of topics for discussion unless we want to change the discussion topic half-way when it loses the majority support.

 

The pros and cons of the continuous vote for the election of a public officer could be another topic for discussion at some other time.

[echarp]:

"What do you think of the -1/0/+1 process to show if you accept or
reject something?"

[Eric]:

What do I do when there are two major points in a message where I agree with one and not the other?

 

Best Regards

Eric Lim

[illegale]

Dear Emmanuel and Eric.

One thing Id really like to suggest, as long as I find it be crucial
part is that this topic does not loose its clear focus. If this focus
is not clear to other members, please accept my excuse and I will try
to articulate it more precisely.

So, let me try do it again.

There are 4 of us willing to join forces as long as we see that we
might be more effective in our work if we suceed. This is the base of
this group, yet this group in order to survive has to have common goal
accepted by every single one of us. If there is no such goal, then
there is no space for group consolidation as long as we all go in
different directions.

In order to see is there space for creation of common goal, clear
enough not to be missinterpreted, I started this topic. Please, keep
this topic oriented to only this issue, to keep clear focus on this
part and enable transparent process.

ATB;
Gale

[Markus Schatten]

Dear group members

I'm sorry you had to wait for me to answer to this issue which is
pretty important for the future. As I see it a good step would be to
generate simple documents to state our common vision and missions,
formulate and consolidate common goals and standpoints. The wiki system
seems to be a good playground for such documents. From my perspective I
think it would be nice to have a common place where our ideas,
concepts, vision, missions etc. are documented so we haven't to explain
issues over and over again every time a new member or participant comes
along.
Another big issue, from my perspective is development of strategy and
it's implementation. If we have a common vision and missions defined,
strategy is the next logical step. Strategy is "just" a system of goals
and we should strugle to achive them one after another. From my
perspective two of the most important goals in our strategy should be
promotion of the concepts we develope(d) and of course the
implementation of an information system to support it.

Best regards

--
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
markus....@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr

[illegale]

Thanks to all participants for making suggestions for the question
above.

First, it seems we all share interest to define TOP more clearly.

My 'Global Public Trust Network' proposal for IT related initiatives
might be inapropriate because as of this moment we don'tshare even
basic thoughts about what this all actually mean to us.

Emmanuels proposal for promotion of TOP also needs TOP defined.

Erics proposal was "What does TOP mean to you?" in order to define TOP
more properly.

Markus proposal, promoting TOP and creating an adequate software
implementing it, again needs a definition.

All in all, it seems that we all agree about

"Erics says:"
What does TOP mean to you?;

to be our first step in going forward.

Erics already voted for it (man before his time :-)), on Irc chat
Emmanuel and I agreed about it, Markus and I had phone conversation
where Markus gave his vote for TOP also.

So, the first goal for this group is set.

_The goal is clear definition of TOP._

*Important*

As long as there was no voting procedure cared on some formal way (I
did not find it be needed in this very situation), if you see some
problem with idea of defining TOP to be our first goal, please state in
this topic to cancel decision that is done. In the meantime, we can get
oriented to ways of how to create definition of TOP good as possible,
satisfying our needs for it.

ATB,
Gale

[illegale]

Summing up:

The goal is clear definition of TOP

We can start topic Erics proposed "what does TOP mean to you?"

ATB,
Gale

[lpc1998]

 

Important Notice:

 

Although this discussion is initiated by a group of 4 members, it is open to all. So all comments and contributions are welcome.

 

================================================

 

 

TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.

 

From the above definition, TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public officials or on public matters among private individuals.

 

How about private exchanges on public matters by public officials? In other words, should there be a prohibition of public officials discussing public matters in private? Should all discussions on public matters be open and public?

 

There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders. Even at this juncture, should there be a prohibition of public officials discussing or consulting each other on public matters non-publicly?

 

Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.

 

Are there any exceptions to the TOP Principles? Perhaps:

 

1  The Secrecy of the Vote;

 

2  National security and state secrets; and

 

3  Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public.

 

For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet.

 

In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens' Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.

 

Best Regards

Eric Lim

[MG]

-Hello, I'm back again after a terrible computer crash just when we
where to produce a 1 minute promotion video to be sent in Swedish
television before the elections this fall...
But now we are done and I can contiue with this important international
project...:-)

"There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for
non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a
public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers
are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for
consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open
and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. "

-My comment here is that we in AD see these things very strict and that
such informal consultations could be very harmful to the later stages
since what's concluded and decided in such closed halls could put a
totally wrong agenda when it comes to public opinion and participation.
Shortly spoken: The privilegue of problem formulae should not be kept
by the inner circles.

Ofcourse none can stop informal contacts but the goal and the only
formal way when to make important decisions should be fully
transparent.
Think of it, what dicussions and decisions can not be held public as
long as we don't speak about nation security?
(which we also could discuss since I'm a fan of the one and only worthy
american president, pres. Wilson who promoted Point 1 in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points ,the total open diplomacy
,in a then very non-mature environment)

[illegale]

Hello Eric!

lpc1998 wrote:
> Important Notice:
>
> Although this discussion is initiated by a group of 4 members, it is open to all. So all comments and contributions are welcome.
>
> ================================================
>
>
> TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.
>
> From the above definition, TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public officials or on public matters among private individuals.

This part about public matters among private individuals is not clear
to me. So, what I do see is that if these individuals are just
privately discuss with no intention to set their interests, or not. If
yes, they actually need TOP in order to set legimacy of their action.
Passing their opinions and interests through TOP they can gain it. If
it does not pass, it can not gain political relevance. So, I suppose
this TOP is oriented towards publicly oriented initiatives in order to
create desired support.

> How about private exchanges on public matters by public officials? In other words, should there be a prohibition of public officials discussing public matters in private? Should all discussions on public matters be open and public?

I do not actually support concept of prohibition. Not just because I do
not find it easy to realise, but because I am not sure is it good at
all?

So, here I find important part is articulation of individuals who set
some policies. More info we have, more people can support such policies
with no fear of loosing of public support. If there are some "mystery"
issues that indiviuals do not find apropriate due to any reason to
public, the way to realise them is putting their word, their reputation
on probation. So, it is up to the public should they legitimate those
mystery ones, or those fully transparent.

For concrete example, there is Milan Bandic in Croatia, pretty strong
politician who openly says, this stuff is not good to talk about in
this very time. And he is not willing to give his opinion about ceratin
issues, but state that. I find this be his right. If he gains legimacy
in such issue, that is fine with me, what I find here important is the
way of articulation of someones integrity and trustworthiness through
this system. This thing be imoprtant one.

So, what about TOP at all? I find it be technical solution that can not
be faked. At this adress, http://www.milanbandiczagreb.com/ we can
notice Milan Bandic does not have any TOP interface, which says to me
he does not want to let to people their right for public speech about
him. This is issue that can not be faked, this is the issue I find
distinctive. Not his legitimated opinion that something is not
interesting issue in some very moment.

And why is that? I suppose because free public speech is something
Bandic is afraid of.

Will contiue at the next post:

[illegale]

> There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet.

Why not lead the whole process publicly from its very start when it is
actually the most vulnerable? Of course, some insiders info might be
passed through private channels always and we can not actually stop it,
at least not at this time. Yet, the whole process going TOP means that
you do not work in completely wrong direction because you missed some
basic point somebody knew. If that somebody states it at the moment the
project has gone far away, that is not good for his reputation as long
as he should state it in the earliest stages.

This is the actual basic isues that 10 000 heads know better that 2
heads whcih becomes major problem when setting some issue to 20 000
eyes after 4 eyes saw only small part of the whole issue.

Now, reading this part again, here comes the question what if some
insiders info lets you make some decision in contrary to common sense
as long as you know that something? What is to be set by public? Is
that actually the issue anyway? Or is TOP just a way how to win over
public debate by being more open, more transparent, more obvious and
more trustworthy than your political competition?

> At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders. Even at this juncture, should there be a prohibition of public officials discussing or consulting each other on public matters non-publicly?

Maybe that should be sort of suggestion? For an example, someone I have
big trust to says to me that XY is linked to criminals. The one I trust
completely does not want to get into the conflict with XY in that
moment, so he wont go in public with this info. Is his right to give me
a clue at where should I look for? Or should I completely ignore every
single issue that is not public?

> Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.
>
> Are there any exceptions to the TOP Principles? Perhaps:
>
> 1 The Secrecy of the Vote;

I am not pro any secrecy as long as complete transparency gives people
the knowledge of ruling which is the basic for maturing process. This
means the whole process going transparently and part of it is voting
also.

About this Voting issue, there is one more point I find important.
Silence majority concept leads to schizoprenia of power, making the
whole process being declarative, not real one. If we want to create
system be fully legitiamted, it needs to mediate the power as clear as
possible in order to preserve its staus. If it is not being done, power
disharmony tends to destroy legimacy of such a system.

> 2 National security and state secrets; and

This is though issue to me. For an example, secrete police and simmilar
isues. Can we work without it? In this moment I belive we can not work
without it, so I suppose this issue being non transparent after the
political decision has been made (creation and control of such
institutions) can easily gain legimacy for their seceret work. If that
is not true, than it wont gain it. That is it.

> 3 Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public.

Now you reminded me about how in ancient Greece example where some
military decisions that where too risky to be set publicly done. Some
man came with location of where the Spartanian (if I remind corectly)
keep their ships on ground. So, they choosed team of respected and
trust wrothy people to make that in the name all. In that way they
where all satisfied.

So, what about equality of info aproach being base for true equality? I
suppose it is imposible in this very time as long as people do not have
endless trust to others. In order to generate such decentralisation of
power based on info equality, choosing spread network of people who can
be part of such team, avoding same people gain to much info in advance
of others, we make such process delibarative for all.

What is important here is elimination of any oligarchical set through
basic system decision making based on fluent collective vocations.

> For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet.

:-) OK, there is a little up grade based on the idea that one issue,
one body in order to eliminate possibility of creating info superior
class of society.

> In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens' Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if
any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.

In general, I do agree.

ATB,
Gale

>
> Best Regards
> Eric Lim
>
>
> illegale <geoer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Summing up:
>
> The goal is clear definition of TOP
>
> We can start topic Erics proposed "what does TOP mean to you?"
>
> ATB,
> Gale
>
>
>
>
>

> --0-832584978-1151767296=:25470
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Google-AttachSize: 3449
>
> <div>&nbsp;</div> <DIV>Important Notice:</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Although this discussion is initiated by a group of 4 members, it is open to all. So all comments and contributions are welcome.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>================================================</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>From the above definition, TOP clearly does not apply to&nbsp;private exchanges on private matters&nbsp;among the public officials or on public matters among private individuals.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>How about private exchanges on public matters by public officials? In other words, should there&nbsp;be a prohibition of public officials discussing public matters in private? Should all discussions on
> public matters be open and public?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages,&nbsp;for non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders. Even at this juncture, should there&nbsp;be a prohibition of public officials discussing or consulting each other on public matters non-publicly?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants
> access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Are there any exceptions to the TOP Principles? Perhaps:</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>1&nbsp; The Secrecy of the Vote;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>2&nbsp; National security and state secrets; and</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>3&nbsp; Any other matter where the body or authority&nbsp;responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>For Points&nbsp;2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public,&nbsp;and the decision of this independent&nbsp;body should be make public and published in the media and the internet.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens' Initiative or Referendum
> (I&amp;R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Best Regards</DIV> <DIV>Eric Lim</DIV> <div><BR><BR><B><I>illegale &lt;geoer...@yahoo.com&gt;</I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Summing up:<BR><BR>The goal is clear definition of TOP<BR><BR>We can start topic Erics proposed "what does TOP mean to you?"<BR><BR>ATB,<BR>Gale<BR><BR><BR>

[illegale]

MG wrote:
> -Hello, I'm back again after a terrible computer crash just when we
> where to produce a 1 minute promotion video to be sent in Swedish
> television before the elections this fall...
> But now we are done and I can contiue with this important international
> project...:-)

Hey Magnus! Glad to see you here.

>
> "There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for
> non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a
> public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers
> are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for
> consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open
> and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. "
>
> -My comment here is that we in AD see these things very strict and that
> such informal consultations could be very harmful to the later stages
> since what's concluded and decided in such closed halls could put a
> totally wrong agenda when it comes to public opinion and participation.
> Shortly spoken: The privilegue of problem formulae should not be kept
> by the inner circles.

Agreed very much. What might be even more important, I find this part
be the reason why so many ships sail in direction that does not lead to
place it is supposed to.

ATB,
Gale

[lpc1998]

 

 

Important Notice:

 

Although this discussion is initiated by a group of 4 members, it is open to all. So all comments and contributions are welcome.

 

================================================

 

[Eric]:

"TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.

 

From the above definition, TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public officials or on public matters among private individuals.

 

How about private exchanges on public matters by public officials? In other words, should there be a prohibition of public officials discussing public matters in private? Should all discussions on public matters be open and public?

 

There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders. Even at this juncture, should there be a prohibition of public officials discussing or consulting each other on public matters non-publicly?"

 

[Latest comments by Magnus]:

"-My comment here is that we in AD see these things very strict and that
such informal consultations could be very harmful to the later stages
since what's concluded and decided in such closed halls could put a
totally wrong agenda when it comes to public opinion and participation.
Shortly spoken: The privilegue of problem formulae should not be kept
by the inner circles."

 

[Latest comments by Eric]:

For private organizations like AD, the members may decide that their organization be totally open and public, but my post is about the running of the government including the civil service ("the public service"): ".... in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business....". Can we have the public service that is run on a totally open and public manner? Can all the files and documents in the public service be accessable through the internet and every move of the public employee (public official) be televised. Is this feasible or even desirable?

 

Since we are developing concepts and procedures ultimately for the governance of a country or the public service, it is better to formulate them based on the needs and requirements of the public service and run our organizations based on them.

 

[Latest comments by Magnus]:

"Ofcourse none can stop informal contacts but the goal and the only
formal way when to make important decisions should be fully
transparent.
Think of it, what dicussions and decisions can not be held public as
long as we don't speak about nation security?"

 

[Latest comments by Eric]:

You are right. All IMPORTANT decisions must be fully transparent.

 

Best Regards

Erci Lim

[lpc1998]

 

[Gale]:

"This part about public matters among private individuals is not clear

to me. ..."

 

My post is about TOP in the public service. 

 

Public officials = public employees

 

Private individuals = ordinary citizens

 

See my reply to [Magnus] for a more detailed explanation.

 

Best regards

Eric Lim

 

illegale <geoer...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[illegale]

> [Latest comments by Eric]:
> For private organizations like AD, the members may decide that their organization be totally open and public, but my post is about the running of the government including the civil service ("the public service"): ".... in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business....". Can we have the public service that is run on a totally open and public manner? Can all the files and documents in the public service be accessable through the internet and every move of the public employee (public official) be televised. Is this feasible or even desirable?

Seems to me there are only concrete security issues that might not be
interesting for public aproach due to their nature. I do not know is
this possible or not from current political context which is the only
we actually have.

> Since we are developing concepts and procedures ultimately for the governance of a country or the public service, it is better to formulate them based on the needs and requirements of the public service and run our organizations based on them.

I agree. We should set up standards that can easily distinct initiatves
that enable public participation from those that do not. What I have
to notice here is that only thsoe organsation that enable and promote
public participation can be called democratic ones. Others actually can
not.

So, lets find these distincions and lets enable creation of TOP society
which is foundaiton for true democracy.

ATB,
Gale

[lpc1998]

Important Notice:

 

Although this discussion is initiated by a group of 4 members, it is open to all. So all comments and contributions are welcome.

 

================================================

 

 

While we are still waiting for Markus and echarp to say what TOP means to them, let us start preparing a list of the elements or 'aspects' of TOP from the responses so far we have received that would be incorporated into our group definition of TOP so that we may be in a position to vote on each of them when the list is finalized.

 

The 'aspects' or elements so far articulated are:

 

A1  TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.

 

A2  TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public employees or on public matters among ordinary citizens.

 

A3  All important decisions must be fully transparent. The whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders.

 

A4  There shall be no prohibition of public employees from having private discussion on any public matter.

 

A5  Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.

 

____________________________________________________

 

 

 

Exceptions to the TOP Principles:

 

E1  The Secrecy of the Vote;

 

E2  National security and state secrets; and

 

E3  Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public.

 

E4  For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet.

 

E5  In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens' Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.

 

______________________________________________________

 

 

Exceptions to the TOP Principles shall not be applicable to the following:

 

N1  The Vote (It shall not be secret).

 

 

____________________________________________________

 

 

Members and readers are free to propose amendments or additions to the above draft items for voting. The vote shall only be called after the list of 'aspects' or elements of TOP are finalized.

 

Best Regards

Eric Lim

 

[Markus Schatten]

+1

--
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.

e-mail: markus....@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr

[Markus Schatten]

Dear group members

Here some thoughts about how I understand TOP. TOP is an acronym for
transparent, open and public political action.

Transparent means to me that every decision and/or project fullfiled by a
political organization, individual or initiative should be fully documented
so every interested individual can follow the reasons any decision was made.

Open means open in the sense of OpenSource. Every project and/or decision
fullfiled by a political organization, individual and/or initiative should be
open for participation for every interested individual. This means that every
person who wants to can and should participate.

Public means that every decision and/or project fullfiled by a political
organization, individual and/or initiative should be public available and
oriented towards the public.

In other words I see TOP as a framework for political action. TOP should be
the reason that will allow good people to behave good and reward them for
being good (by saying good I mean it in the broadest sense of the word).

To address some formalities which were stated in this disscussion.

Eric stated:
----------

Exceptions to the TOP Principles:
   

  E1  The Secrecy of the Vote;
   
  E2  National security and state secrets; and
   
  E3  Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a

necessity in the national interests not to be open and public.
   

  E4  For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent

body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public,
and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published
in the media and the internet.
   

  E5  In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the

final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens' Initiative or
Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the
independent body.
   

----------

I do very wellcome the idea of an independent body to review the exceptions of
TOP principles, since I agree that there are some secrets in this very moment
which cannot be fully TOP because of other
organizations/individuals/initiatives which do not behave TOP and can easily
take advantage of such knowledge. But I'd like to add some comments which
came to my mind. First the independent body should be elected on random (to
avoid possible corruption of body members) and their names should be secret
until they made the decision. In this way the body can make it's decision
without possible pressure but with responsibility since afterwards they
become public.
Another issue I'd like to address is that it should be stated that the
ultimate goal is to achieve fully TOP behavior, so there should not be
exceptions like E2 and E3 (in the future). Such secrets are pretty dangerous
in the common world. Some simple examples include the murder of J.F.K., Area
51, genuine inventions like the car on water and/or the washing machine
without washing powder. So there are secrets which if published would be
public good, but still are not since their publicity is not in the interest
of the people with power.
E5 is fine with me, but I'm curious how should such a referendum look like.
Since some information is secret, and the public should decide if it should
be published. How should they decide if they have no idea what kind of
information they are deciding about?
Another interesting question is, who is responsible for secret information,
who has the right to know secret information, and who will control such
individuals for not taking advantage of their knowledge? This is matter of
organization, and seems to me a very critical issue.

Best regards

[echarp]

TOP are, to me, some principles that define how politics should evolve
in the coming times. They apply on the processes themselves, the
electronic processes. Thus I guess individuals speaking privately are
not concerned as much as forums.

It's a basis of democracy on the net.

There is one test which would validate the application of transparency
=> replicability. Anybody should be able to copy in real time a
political process that applies the transparency principles.

Replicability is a test proving this state of fact.

Open participation is to allow anybody to enter in the process. No
barrier to entry.

There are exceptions to this
* a personal password or PGP private key can be kept private
* participating in an electoral process does not imply to be counted (or
that would allow easy cheating on a large scale using electronic
persona)
* the relationship between a physical identity and a persona can be kept
secret
* national security, "raison d'état"

That last point is *highly* dubious, machiavel did say that everything
in the state was a matter of "raison d'état". Thus it should be very
strictly circumvented.

Concerning the private / public delimitations, what should be made
public or kept private, I'm still in discussion with myself on those
matters :)

There is one test that could be useful: everything recorded has to be
made public. Is it not easier? Of course it's still rather large, what
of mails sent between husband and wife, mails which could contain
information on public matters? (in france the head of the socialist
party is the husband of a candidate to the next presidential elections)

What other test could be used? Should it be limited to democratic
processes? Votes and propositions, things like that...

> I do very wellcome the idea of an independent body to review the
> exceptions of TOP principles, since I agree that there are some
> secrets in this very moment which cannot be fully TOP because of other
> organizations/individuals/initiatives which do not behave TOP and can
> easily take advantage of such knowledge. But I'd like to add some
> comments which came to my mind. First the independent body should be
> elected on random (to avoid possible corruption of body members) and
> their names should be secret until they made the decision. In this way
> the body can make it's decision without possible pressure but with
> responsibility since afterwards they become public.

This independent body will be the target of huge pressures. Over time
you can envision party people taking those seats and turning a blind eye
whenever they are asked to... :(

echarp - http://leparlement.org/top-politics

[illegale]

> I do very wellcome the idea of an independent body to review the exceptions of
> TOP principles, since I agree that there are some secrets in this very moment
> which cannot be fully TOP because of other
> organizations/individuals/initiatives which do not behave TOP and can easily
> take advantage of such knowledge.

This is important part to articulate. What I see is the fact TOP
initiatives are in information level under the closed organisations as
long as they share information for free to everybody and everyone, even
close structures.

Yet, what can TOP initaitives do is the same thing what has been done
with GPL licence in philosophical level. This means closing TOP
initiatives in its openness. How to gain it? By solidarity and global
TOP agreement of such initiatives. In that way, closed initatives can
not just take and not give anything which is the mechsnism that enables
oportunism. TOP must disable oportunistic behaviour in order to
succeed.

Though, what does it mean open than? I suppose this part is about
giving chance for info spreading to everybody, yet desicion making
process + support has to be based on TOP elements only.

> But I'd like to add some comments which
> came to my mind. First the independent body should be elected on random (to
> avoid possible corruption of body members) and their names should be secret
> until they made the decision. In this way the body can make it's decision
> without possible pressure but with responsibility since afterwards they
> become public.

What I find important about info control is that it is decentralised,
dissabling creation of the centers that are obviously superior to those
who are not informed.

> Another issue I'd like to address is that it should be stated that the
> ultimate goal is to achieve fully TOP behavior, so there should not be
> exceptions like E2 and E3 (in the future). Such secrets are pretty dangerous
> in the common world. Some simple examples include the murder of J.F.K., Area
> 51, genuine inventions like the car on water and/or the washing machine
> without washing powder. So there are secrets which if published would be
> public good, but still are not since their publicity is not in the interest
> of the people with power.
> E5 is fine with me, but I'm curious how should such a referendum look like.
> Since some information is secret, and the public should decide if it should
> be published. How should they decide if they have no idea what kind of
> information they are deciding about?
> Another interesting question is, who is responsible for secret information,
> who has the right to know secret information, and who will control such
> individuals for not taking advantage of their knowledge? This is matter of
> organization, and seems to me a very critical issue.

OK.
ATB,Gale

[illegale]

I suppose we should set exact standards that enable global legitimation
by TOP initiatives. If that standards is achieved, everything is fine,
if not, than nothing. About hthese standards, which i find crucial is
to make them effective as long as only such standards can induce
solidarity base for their implementation.

> There is one test that could be useful: everything recorded has to be
> made public. Is it not easier? Of course it's still rather large, what
> of mails sent between husband and wife, mails which could contain
> information on public matters? (in france the head of the socialist
> party is the husband of a candidate to the next presidential elections)

Interesting :-)

> What other test could be used? Should it be limited to democratic
> processes? Votes and propositions, things like that...

Decision making for setting policies has to be TOP. What about running
operational processes, here comes the question. I suppose it is up to
the body. If the body is some public object, we might not care about
what is being done inside it if it does not want to be runed publicly.
If it wants, I suppose we should support it also.

> This independent body will be the target of huge pressures. Over time
> you can envision party people taking those seats and turning a blind eye
> whenever they are asked to... :(

This part is about public reputation and mechanisms that can measure
such. If there is enough political capital to make decision, I suppose
we might trust it. If not, we can not trust it.

ATB.
Gale
>
> echarp - http://leparlement.org/top-politics

[illegale]

> While we are still waiting for Markus and echarp to say what TOP means to them, let us start preparing a list of the elements or 'aspects' of TOP from the responses so far we have received that would be incorporated into our group definition of TOP so that we may be in a position to vote on each of them when the list is finalized.
>
> The 'aspects' or elements so far articulated are:
>
> A1 TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.

Running issues by example is the best way to promote it. So, if we want
to be powerfull citizens, we have to show governance how can it be
done. That is the reason I look into promotion of new mechanism of
generation of the power that can lead process before goverment in this
very time also.

> A2 TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public employees or on public matters among ordinary citizens.

OK. This is a matter of organisations. Do they want to be TOP or not.
Every single one of course. As long as I believe that democracy is in
itc core idea of global citizan political engagement and as long as we
take part of this big body by being a legitimated part of the process,
it is aplied to every singe one who is participating in politics of any
kind.

> A3 All important decisions must be fully transparent. The whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders.

Why only important? This can only put some confusion into what is
important and what is not important? So, why not all?

> A4 There shall be no prohibition of public employees from having private discussion on any public matter.

OK.

> A5 Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.

OK.

[Markus Schatten]

Dear group members

On Monday 10 July 2006 16:33, illegale wrote:
<cut>

> Yet, what can TOP initaitives do is the same thing what has been done
> with GPL licence in philosophical level. This means closing TOP
> initiatives in its openness. How to gain it? By solidarity and global
> TOP agreement of such initiatives. In that way, closed initatives can
> not just take and not give anything which is the mechsnism that enables
> oportunism. TOP must disable oportunistic behaviour in order to
> succeed.

<cut>

Yes, this is something we (Gale and I) allready talked about. This is why we
developed the idea of an infrastructure which would allow "closing inside
openness". To "close" organizations/individuals/initiatives (oii's) there
should be something like a licence which would allow the use of TOP
information only by TOP certified oii's. Thus the infrastructure consists of
a licence, a standard and a certificate as elaborated some time ago on this
group.
In this way TOP oii's would be in some way protected against nonTOP oii's. How
to articulate such a standard and such a licence is another issue. If I
remember well once as I was analyzing GPL licences I saw that people of the
FSF are often willing to support the development of new licenses, so maybe we
should contact them and ask for support?

[Markus Schatten]

Dear group members

On Monday 10 July 2006 16:49, illegale wrote:
<cut>

> Running issues by example is the best way to promote it. So, if we want
> to be powerfull citizens, we have to show governance how can it be
> done. That is the reason I look into promotion of new mechanism of
> generation of the power that can lead process before goverment in this
> very time also.

<cut>

Hehe, this elaboration associated me to a crazy idea. Lets form our own
virtual country and try to create a TOP government by example ;-)

<cut>

> Why only important? This can only put some confusion into what is
> important and what is not important? So, why not all?
>

<cut>

+1 I think all decisions on public matter should be fully transparent.

[echarp]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 07:01:01AM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
> Hehe, this elaboration associated me to a crazy idea. Lets form our own
> virtual country and try to create a TOP government by example ;-)

+1 :-)

> > Why only important? This can only put some confusion into what is
> > important and what is not important? So, why not all?
>

> +1 I think all decisions on public matter should be fully transparent.

Let's try to delineate what is public and what is not.

I have an idea about it, practical and corresponding to what is mostly
already done =>
"all government recorded information should be made public. All
democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be
replicated in real time"

No limit but for a time buffer which could be set at the instigation of
a group of representatives (I dislike that idea, and am still looking
for another mechanism).

echarp - http://leparlement.org

[MG]

"All
democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be
replicated in real time"

-How can all be public when there are representatives involved?
Shall all telephone or live conversations be written out and published
on the internet?
No-one would accept that as a rep.
The only solution to this is DD.

[echarp]

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:12:27PM -0700, MG wrote:
> > All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can
> > be replicated in real time
>
> -How can all be public when there are representatives involved?
> Shall all telephone or live conversations be written out and published
> on the internet?

Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at the
level of voters.

They don't have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact
that they represent more than their own voice.

> The only solution to this is DD.

In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they don't
control that many/much things.

To me what is important is that citizen *can* directly participate. Yet
is it practical to consider that everybody *should* participate directly
on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the quantity of
things managed democratically?

echarp

[Mark]

echarp wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:12:27PM -0700, MG wrote:
> > > All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can
> > > be replicated in real time

> >mG: -How can all be public when there are representatives involved? Shall all telephone or live conversations be written out and published on the internet?

>ec: Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at the level of voters. They don't have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact that they represent more than their own voice.

-M: That is special status. What other special status is there?

> >mG: The only solution to this is DD.

>ec: In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they don't

control that many/much things. To me what is important is that citizen
*can* directly participate.

-M: It seems that we have:
1. direct democracy (L-DD)
2. representitve democracy
-a. popular RD (L-RD)
-b. accumulative/augmented RD (SD2, and maybe Parlement/EC-D)
3. participatory democracy (PD) (This seems to be the common ground of
all of us - our mutually intended GOAL. AD seems to attempt this.)

>ec: Yet is it practical to consider that everybody *should* participate directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the quantity of things managed democratically? echarp

-M: People can use PD to organize their:
1. businesses
2. volunteer activities
3. political endevors

Isn't it conceivable that a society could have 90% of the people
organized with PD in atleast one of these categories? Maybe 70%
organized with two of these categories?
50% with all three?

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[MG]

"Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at the

level of voters.

They don't have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact
that they represent more than their own voice. "

-They have a very special status!
They are the ones to put forward the proposals in a RD.
So when they decide on strategy to get their hiden agendas fulfilled,
thay have to be wired actually if we'r talking TOP-principles.

"In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they
don't
control that many/much things."

-In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them.
But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.

"To me what is important is that citizen *can* directly participate.
Yet
is it practical to consider that everybody *should* participate
directly
on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the quantity of
things managed democratically? "

-AD has means to both minimize the numbers of issues to read (the
continous vote) and if still too many, to delegate one or all
issues/areas for now until further change or for a specific time
period.

[MG]

"-M: It seems that we have:
1. direct democracy (L-DD)
2. representitve democracy
-a. popular RD (L-RD)
-b. accumulative/augmented RD (SD2, and maybe Parlement/EC-D)
3. participatory democracy (PD) (This seems to be the common ground of
all of us - our mutually intended GOAL. AD seems to attempt this.)

>ec: Yet is it practical to consider that everybody *should* participate directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the quantity of things managed democratically? echarp

-M: People can use PD to organize their:
1. businesses
2. volunteer activities
3. political endevors

Isn't it conceivable that a society could have 90% of the people
organized with PD in atleast one of these categories? Maybe 70%
organized with two of these categories?
50% with all three?

MG: +1, Mark! ;-)

[Mark]

MG wrote:
> "Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at the
> level of voters. They don't have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact

> that they represent more than their own voice. "[ec]

> -mG:They have a very special status! They are the ones to put forward the proposals in a RD. So when they decide on strategy to get their hiden agendas fulfilled, thay have to be wired actually if we'r talking TOP-principles.

-M: Yes, and its this special status which makes them *elite* by the
definition that has been used. Based on how I understand the math of
Parlement/EC-D, it is conceivable that a delegate could get dictatorial
power over an issue with 51% of the vote delegated to that person. By
contrast, SD2 would tend to spread the vote among boards of three or
five.

> "In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they don't control that many/much things." [ec]

>mG: -In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them.

-M: Which could lead to too much concentration of power. This is why I
label boards of five in SD2 as 'normal mode' to discourage
concentrations of power to smaller groups.

>mG: But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.

-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in
power positions.

[Mark]

MG wrote:
> "-M: It seems that we have:
> 1. direct democracy (L-DD)

> 2. representitive democracy

> -a. popular RD (L-RD)
> -b. accumulative/augmented RD (SD2, and maybe Parlement/EC-D)
> 3. participatory democracy (PD) (This seems to be the common ground of
> all of us - our mutually intended GOAL. AD seems to attempt this.)

[...]

> -M: People can use PD to organize their:
> 1. businesses
> 2. volunteer activities
> 3. political endevors

-M: To add: 'volunteer activities' also means *nonprofit*, and
'political endevors' doesn't mean that the political system in its
entirety would be PD - simply having one or more major parties
organized as PDs would suffice.

> Isn't it conceivable that a society could have 90% of the people
> organized with PD in atleast one of these categories? Maybe 70%
> organized with two of these categories? 50% with all three?

> MG: +1, Mark! ;-)

-M: OK, Karl, I made you happy and I am glad. :-)
I seems my breakthrough is in *communicating* a common ground, not
actually in *newly forming* a common ground.
Wasn't it obvious that SD2 creates *generative conditions* for PD?
Wasn't it obvious that SD2-Smartocracy is PD?
What now, Karl?
I say that *AD with an SD2 umbrella* is a superior form of PD than
*SD2 with an AD umbrella*. With my system, all participants could
recieve a generalist political rank - and the top ranked would be the
organizers of the specialists.

It seems that with your system, the top generalists would be largely
unknown, and the top administrators would be chosen merely for their
ability to administer.

I see this as *abuse prone* because the top administrators may have
different agendas than the top generalists, and may want to skew the
andminitration of law in their favor.

[echarp]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:46:15PM -0700, MG wrote:
> > Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at
> > the level of voters.
> >
> > They don't have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact
> > that they represent more than their own voice.
>

> They have a very special status!
> They are the ones to put forward the proposals in a RD.

Where does it say that?

> So when they decide on strategy to get their hiden agendas fulfilled,
> thay have to be wired actually if we'r talking TOP-principles.

Do you want to wire all voters? What if they discuss and influence each
others? What of a voter's party or syndicate?

> > In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they
> > don't control that many/much things.
>

> In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them.
> But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.

No need for any delay, their power change just as voters set or remove
their delegations :)

> > To me what is important is that citizen *can* directly participate.
> > Yet is it practical to consider that everybody *should* participate
> > directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the
> > quantity of things managed democratically? "
>

> AD has means to both minimize the numbers of issues to read (the
> continous vote) and if still too many, to delegate one or all
> issues/areas for now until further change or for a specific time
> period.

There can be a *HUGE* number of active issues at any one time. Consider that
all our current laws are each an issue onto which a citizen can vote!

And that amount can increase by factors of 10, 100, 10^10, no limit!!!
All laws, rules, nominations, communications, news, local and
international, could be issues. All active and available for vote and
discussions.

The delegation you are speaking about, is of what kind?

echarp - http://leparlement.org

[Mark]

echarp wrote:
[...]

> > In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them.
> > But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.

>ec: No need for any delay, their power change just as voters set or remove their delegations :)

-M: Maybe that is what Karl meant. This is also how SD2-Smartocracy
works.

> > > To me what is important is that citizen *can* directly participate.
> > > Yet is it practical to consider that everybody *should* participate
> > > directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the
> > > quantity of things managed democratically? "

> > AD has means to both minimize the numbers of issues to read (the
> > continous vote) and if still too many, to delegate one or all
> > issues/areas for now until further change or for a specific time
> > period.

>ec: There can be a *HUGE* number of active issues at any one time. Consider that all our current laws are each an issue onto which a citizen can vote! And that amount can increase by factors of 10, 100, 10^10, no limit!!! All laws, rules, nominations, communications, news, local and international, could be issues. All active and available for vote and discussions. The delegation you are speaking about, is of what kind?

-M: (You are asking Karl this question, but I will pretend that you are
inquiring into SD2-Smartocracy.)

I imagine that an issue gets voted on when the following conditions are
met:

1. It has the largest number of current votes(compared with competing
issues).
2. It meets the required voting volume(example: 20% of qualified
voters)
3. votes are distributed toward decisive positions(not 'neutral' or
'deliberate')

So my input field could be like this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name [_______________________________]

Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]

Optional additional representitives: [___________________________]
[________________________________________________________]

Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Deliberate [ ]

Optional delegate(s)
(will default to representitives if none are selected):
[____________________________________________]

Decision threshold [60]%...
(range *50%+1* - 70%, default 60%)

...of a required [20]%+5 of qualified voters
(range (0% - 40%)+5, default 20%+5)

--------------------------------------------------

[MG]

">mG: -In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give
them.

-M: Which could lead to too much concentration of power. This is why I
label boards of five in SD2 as 'normal mode' to discourage
concentrations of power to smaller groups. "

-You have a point here. In Ad we actually don't give this problem so
much thought yet.
But it is possible to solve by maximising the percentage of the votes
for one delegate o 20% or so. In AD case delegation also can be made to
an organization which makes things a little more complicated.
If this organization is a political party, things might be as today.
The important difference is the instant drawback of the
delegation...which stresses the best from all delegates apart from
today.
And the fact that a delegation can be only for socfic issues, such as
energy or environment, or for all issues for a certain time.
In this way AD wan't to give the citizens all possible levels of DD
down to pure RD.

"-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in
power positions. "

-A key issue!

[Mark]

MG wrote:
> ">mG: -In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give
> them.
>
> -M: Which could lead to too much concentration of power. This is why I
> label boards of five in SD2 as 'normal mode' to discourage
> concentrations of power to smaller groups. "

> -You have a point here. In Ad we actually don't give this problem so
> much thought yet. But it is possible to solve by maximising the percentage of the votes for one delegate o 20% or so.

-M: There could be a vote on the percentage limit.
SD2-Smartocracy makes the PageRank of the decision decisive, and there
is a vote on the number of executive committee members - 1, 3, or 5,
and there is no rule against these executives also being among the
highest legislators - very parliamentary.

>mG: In AD case delegation also can be made to an organization which makes things a little more complicated. If this organization is a political party, things might be as today. The important difference is the instant drawback of the delegation...which stresses the best from all delegates apart from today. And the fact that a delegation can be only for socfic issues, such as energy or environment, or for all issues for a certain time. In this way AD wan't[wants] to give the citizens all possible levels of DD down to pure RD.

-M: By contrast SD2-Smartocracy is always extreme RD, because DD
discourages PD by spreading peoples' power to thinly. With SD2-S,
particants are rewarded with rank - this rewards efforts with
decisiveness.

> "-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in power positions. "

>mG: -A key issue!

-M: PD or replacements? We seem to be in agreement on both, so the only
issue seems to be how we communicate our opinions.

[MG]

"> "-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in
power positions. "
>mG: -A key issue!

-M: PD or replacements? We seem to be in agreement on both, so the only

issue seems to be how we communicate our opinions. "

Both!
I really think that we could reach common agreement if you only stopped
the L-words...

[Mark]

MG wrote:
> "> "-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in power positions. "
> >mG: -A key issue!

> -M: PD or replacements? We seem to be in agreement on both, so the only issue seems to be how we communicate our opinions. "

>mG: Both! I really think that we could reach common agreement...

-M: You do have delegates - this is RD in practice.
Political structures would be built around them.

Can delegates delegate to other delegates as with Parlement/EC-D?

If the depth of this delegation is unlimited, you will need a
reiterative centrality algorithm like PageRank.

So far, Emmanuel has said that the way he would avoid having to use
PageRank was to forbid delegates from voting for each other. How?
Chronological priviliging? What about loops? Emmanuel keeps DODGING and
would rather talk about the World Cup than mathematics or his constant
contradictions. And why do users of his delegable proxy constraints
have:
1. only one delegate?
2. a choice of delegate OR a position?

By contrast, SD2-Smartocracy offers:
1. a trustee or
2. trustees and/or
3. a delegate or
4. delegates and/or
5. issue choice and/or
6. decision thresholds

This gives maximum choice to the voter without arbitrariness.
This identifies the expert opinion for each decision.
This also identifies a body of generalists to act as political
organizers and high administrators.

>mG:...if you only stopped the L-words...

-M: Emmanullemmings - they get in the way of participatory democracy.
Now an "E"-word.

[Markus Schatten]

Dear Emmanuel

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:49, echarp wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 07:01:01AM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
> > Hehe, this elaboration associated me to a crazy idea. Lets form our own
> > virtual country and try to create a TOP government by example ;-)
>
> +1 :-)
>

;-) What do the others think about this idea? TOP Union? ;-)

> > > Why only important? This can only put some confusion into what is
> > > important and what is not important? So, why not all?
> >
> > +1 I think all decisions on public matter should be fully transparent.
>
> Let's try to delineate what is public and what is not.
>
> I have an idea about it, practical and corresponding to what is mostly
> already done =>
> "all government recorded information should be made public. All
> democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be
> replicated in real time"
>
> No limit but for a time buffer which could be set at the instigation of
> a group of representatives (I dislike that idea, and am still looking
> for another mechanism).

Hmmm... when all professional communication (non-private) is done over a
public information system than I think most of TOP principles are fulfilled.
If you take todays media possibilities than everything could be easily
accessable and on-line in real-time, or did I understand you wrong?