How to improve communication on the list?
illegale
nothing, as long as E is doing +1/o/-1 stuff in this moment. Yet,
there is no organised manner of fighting non transparency of this
group. So, let me start with it on this topic.
First of all, OFF TOPIC. If somebody makes some off topic, it would be
rather good to open new topic about it if there is no already topic
about it.
In that way, other members who do not lurk trough every single theme
all the time, will have oportunity to see that and participate there.
Another thing is that I can notice many very simmilar topics all the
way, in the last time usually about lemming stuff.
This random theme promotion is NOT GOOD. If we look this group, we can
not find one single topic where several members decided to solve one
single problem till the moment they succeed in that.
So, my first reccomendation about this is this procedure:
1. Articulate the topic
2. Start the topic
3. Invite other members you find would be interested in it
4. All the off topic that suits to that topic on the other themes, move
there.
5 If there come out the new questions, articulate them and open new
topic or join it to existing topic about it.
Second reccomendation would be finding way of articulation of the
procedure of how to get conclusions of the topic and conclusions
themselves. Yet, first reccomendation is the first thing to do.
So, what do you think?
One more thing. If E, Mark, Magnus and Markus agree about this, Eric
said he would do the same thing. So, is this a good way forward or not?
MG
I will stopp all my current argumentation and start trying follow the
rule 1 to 5 from now on!
echarp
opened to discussion by anyone?)
In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which will
allow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
illegale
> +1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren't all issues
> opened to discussion by anyone?)
I am not sure I understand you again.
4 is ment to each one of us if want to start new topic uses stuff that
already exist on this group, but is spreaded around, making it not
reachable to average user who wont lurk all around for it.
> In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which will
> allow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negative
consequences but "not fighting against mess reputation", we are talking
about list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, but
if we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that line
will profit.
Is there still the problem about it, E?
ATB,
Gale
> echarp - http://leparlement.org
MG
lack of more than one fourm.
In PHPbb there are different categories possible.
Here we have to live with a more strict use of different threads.
echarp
> echarp wrote:
> > +1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren't all issues
> > opened to discussion by anyone?)
>
> I am not sure I understand you again.
Oups, I meant number 3
3. Invite other members you find would be interested in it
But I guess this is just a manner to open discussion, and that every
body else is of course invited.
> > In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which will
> > allow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
>
> So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negative
> consequences but "not fighting against mess reputation", we are talking
> about list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, but
> if we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that line
> will profit.
What is mess reputation?
> Is there still the problem about it, E?
No real problem, I'm definitely fine about this kind of thread
management. Plus it will thus be much easier to vote on individual
messages/issues ;)
echarp - http://leparlement.org
illegale
> One of the reasons still mixing different issue with each other is the
> lack of more than one fourm.
OK. Yet, we should possibly start working on the interface that will
have this option IMO.
ATB,
Gale
illegale
echarp wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 06:38:24AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > echarp wrote:
> > > +1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren't all issues
> > > opened to discussion by anyone?)
> >
> > I am not sure I understand you again.
>
> Oups, I meant number 3
>
> 3. Invite other members you find would be interested in it
OK. So, it is just an option I prefer to use in the moment other
members should be informed about discussion. Another option we use in
Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all follow the whole conversation,
so if there is no comment, that means we are all fine with that, so we
can go forward together.
As long as some members can not participate on the group allways, they
have to announce it, to find out what to do than /wait/inform by
telephonne/do without them/. Is this needed in this moment, I do not
know, so, if you have problem with it, we can leave it beside in this
moment.
> But I guess this is just a manner to open discussion, and that every
> body else is of course invited.
>
> > > In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which will
> > > allow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
> >
> > So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negative
> > consequences but "not fighting against mess reputation", we are talking
> > about list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, but
> > if we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that line
> > will profit.
>
> What is mess reputation?
Something bad :-)
Suppose taht we will all apreciate if we systemise this group a little
bit more than it is systemised now. but if somebody wont do such thing,
it is his right, yet those who want to systemise group wont respect
it/him because of that.
> > Is there still the problem about it, E?
>
> No real problem, I'm definitely fine about this kind of thread
> management. Plus it will thus be much easier to vote on individual
> messages/issues ;)
Cool!
echarp
>
> MG wrote:
> > One of the reasons still mixing different issue with each other is the
> > lack of more than one fourm.
>
> OK. Yet, we should possibly start working on the interface that will
> have this option IMO.
>
> > Here we have to live with a more strict use of different threads.
We can open any number of other groups, can we not?
Same on "parlement":http://leparlement.org where each message is its own
forum.
I can easily create as many forums as required with simple emails and
web urls like:
* f...@leparlement.org
* http://leparlement.org/faq
And later, maybe something like http://faq.leparlement.org
(in fact anybody is able to create such a thing, but right now the id,
like "faq", are automatically generated guid that don't look so nice).
echarp - http://leparlement.org
echarp
> Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all
> follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means
> we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.
This is a good idea, but I predict that it can't scale with
participants and issues...
Implicit agreement will not work when issues and voices are buried in a
mass of other issues and voices.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
illegale
echarp wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all
> > follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means
> > we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.
>
> This is a good idea, but I predict that it can't scale with
> participants and issues...
Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?
> Implicit agreement will not work when issues and voices are buried in a
> mass of other issues and voices.
OK, that would be a second step. Articulation of decision making
process and articulation of conclusions. Right?
Nevertheless, it seems to me that this part is actually belonging to
second step.
So, my opinion about 3 is 0.
If we think it is good to invite members, we will invite them.
> echarp - http://leparlement.org
echarp
> echarp wrote:
> > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > > Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all
> > > follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means
> > > we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.
> >
> > This is a good idea, but I predict that it can't scale with
> > participants and issues...
>
> Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?
What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need
to vote on each to make sure you don't agree?
> If we think it is good to invite members, we will invite them.
Of course we are always free to :)
echarp - http://leparlement.org
MG
to vote on each to make sure you don't agree?
What a minute!
Are you discussing todays forum now or the final system?
AD can handle thousands if issues without to much struggle for the
average citizen but can we keep this discussion to the current
situation please?
echarp
> >What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need
> to vote on each to make sure you don't agree?
>
> What a minute!
> Are you discussing todays forum now or the final system?
Yes I am. Would it not be great if this current forum could scale up? If
our current postings were not lost?
> AD can handle thousands if issues without to much struggle for the
> average citizen but can we keep this discussion to the current
> situation please?
How would issues be organised? (I did write a mail about that, care to
pursue it?)
echarp - http://leparlement.org
MG
Organized in a list where the user can sort on age of proposal,
originator of it, accumulated support (=forecast on when the vote can
be over), area of interest etc etc.
echarp
> Did you read the AD party programme or my explanations of it?
I read it but didn't keep it in mind. Sorry.
> Organized in a list where the user can sort on age of proposal,
> originator of it, accumulated support (=forecast on when the vote can
> be over), area of interest etc etc.
Area of interest, hum hum, what is that? How is it associated with
issues?
All other criteria don't seem like enough to me. Thousands of issues
would look like a nightmare if sorted only on date, author or support.
Anyway, organising issues is *VERY* important, yet we haven't discussed
it much... :-(
echarp - http://leparlement.org
illegale
echarp wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:20:33AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > echarp wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > > > Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all
> > > > follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means
> > > > we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.
> > >
> > > This is a good idea, but I predict that it can't scale with
> > > participants and issues...
> >
> > Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?
>
> What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need
> to vote on each to make sure you don't agree?
I suppose it is not right thing for millions. Yet, open play is
constantly changing play. Larger numbers, different modes becoming more
usefull and stuff.
illegale
OK. I suppose we can involve new parameters in the moment we see the
need for such. In the same time, importance of the issue is needed
right now IMO. As long as AD is the only system that involves
importance stratification. I am pro using it.
Yet, that wuold probalby be second set that involves processing
conclusion stuff. Or maybe even before that?
MG
infrastucture, education, health care in terms of political area.
The AD vision is:
There will probably never be thousands of issues since few will be in a
state over a certain support ready for a prognostized finalisation (a
certain level of the accumulated support depending on the democracy
constant set in the system) within say 4 weeks, but still never to be
decided upon by reaching the level of 1.
At least not if you filter out political areas that you don't care
about or have delegated.
A lot will never gain any big support at all due the just the fact that
people (and polticians today!) can only concentrate on a limited number
of issues in the same time.
This is not a problem since good decision making will lead to less
problem with old issues giving more space for new issues once the old
ones are well handled and finsihed.
So of course we can discuss ways of sorting issues but much will
actually be handled automagically by the AD system.
There is no need to everyone to read all new issues. If an issue is
well written and has good arguments it is possible to promote like in
todays political world.
These good proposals will be the only one needed to handle for the
average user. They will also be the ones news media will be reporting
from.
Bad written, non funded or not liked proposals will never bother the
average user.
Only if you have very deep interest in a certain political field, you
may choose to watch for new proposals that may have been put.
And finally, as said before, this is not an issue anyway for the
current TOP-group.
The issue can well be handled later once we have decided on to start to
make decisions at all...using AD or any other democratic principle.
Markus Schatten
Why not take a SourceForge approach as disscused earlier. Issues organized in
projects or organizations. Each project has his own forum, voting system,
wiki etc. where issues can be organized quite well.
Best regards
--
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus....@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
Markus Schatten
echarp
> Why not take a SourceForge approach as disscused earlier. Issues organized in
> projects or organizations. Each project has his own forum, voting system,
> wiki etc. where issues can be organized quite well.
I actually have a "book of laws" approach. Where a group of individuals
is given a tool used to democratically write those books.
And I would separate the books themselves from their voters, each book
elements being approved or not through electoral lists.
Where are managed electoral lists in you opinion? (no one here discusses
those lists)
echarp - http://leparlement.org