3 months ago 5 of us decided to join forces in order of moving forward together. We set our first goal, which was definition of TOP, which is not so easy task, yet rather important for our future work.
In last month we lost some interest in moving forward, probably due to holiday season which is now over.
I believe we can go on and finish our first goal. I understand that some of you did not gain interest back to finish our first work, but I have to mention that the worst thing that can happen is to leave things non-finished. If we did agree to enter this process and finish our first task, we have to do that, even if most of us would not enjoy that much anymore.
But, if we leave this task non-finished, instead of gaining more trust among each other, we will actually loose trust, which makes this be creation of non-trust network, something highly demotivating for further work and cooperation that all of us will actually need if we want to succeed in our political work.
So, Markus and I are moving on, I hope other members will find some strenght to endure to finish of our first goal. After that we can separate.
ATB, Gale
PS. Whoever /including persons who are not origian members of group of 5/ is willing to participate in continuing of this process, please read previous mail from definition of TOP in order to get fully informed before moving on.
I have a little suggestion. Since through intensive communication we weren't able to formulate a concise definition I propose that we take the text on http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP as a starting point, and see what is good, and what is bad in such a definition. Maybe through an OpenSource approach we can optimize this definition, e.g. write new versions and track down bugs until we are all satisfied with the definition.
This is actually extra literature (:)), text I translated about TOP from Croatian. It was not originally part of the discussion, but it might be usefull.
This is current definition of TOP from Tiaktiv, yet we do not think it has satisfying value, so that is the reason we from Tiaktiv actually show big interests in redefinition of the whole oncept.
> Can't find again that page I had seen with all your votes and the > results, but from what I understand the aims are, I'd very much like to > participate.
This is the current process we adopted, based on three basic questions:
Now, we are in the phase 1 called:
"Where are we now?"
In this moment we do share some thoughts about TOP and how do we understand it. In this very moment, as long as we just gathering new thoughts and perspectives, there is some need for free communication withouth too concrete bindings.
When we do share some thoughts, or at least when Serge gives his shot as long as others might be satisfied with they current participation in this very moment, next thing we can do is to take thoughts of OTHER participiants.
By pointing out thoughts of others, we can notice how penetrating are these thoughts in general public that is not based on our micro contexts that are not politically relevant.
Then we are entering to second stage which is:
"Where would we like to be?"
In second stage we share our expectations of future definition. What do we actually want from it? What are our desires and needs?
When we realise our needs, we can develop basic shell on xwiki and start filling it.
The last stage:
"How do we get there?"
Might be based on xwiki as recomended, yet the whole process is openstanding and can be changed if we realise there current process is not satisfactory.
Now, we can also set general dead lines and my suggestion is that we set next generation of TOP definition in 2 months in order of not letting this project die due to no time expectations.
+1 Hey, Just registered on the TOP website, I agree editing the Wiki is probably the simplest and fastest option to get the definition agreed on. Also it seems to me that if the mechanisms of TOP require a lot of thought and experimentation, defining TOP seems actually pretty straightforward. Probably deceptively since you appear to have had extensive discussions on it. I know that when talking to some friends about the concept of transparency there is no misunderstanding as to what is meant (ie, when you want to have a look, things are clear). I'll try making some edits to the wiki, and then you'll cut or keep depending on what you think and off we go. Have a good weekend, Serge
Personally I love and appreciate transparency, I propose a criteria to determine if an organisation is strongly transparent => if it publishes enough data so as to be able to setup a duplicate organisation of itself.
This is particularly useful in democratic settings, where a duplicability criteria would help in order to audit any process and its data.
If you think that would be the finest manner of realising this work, then I am proud to say we have set first competition in project menagement.
IMO, thorough brain stream is really needed for setting proper basic shell for this, where wiki is not as usefull as regular discussion group. Of course, my assumption might be wrong.
PS. This is step forward IMO indeed. Yet, I hope that in one of the next definitions we will explain some other functional parts that are not involved in this very moment (for an example - idea od certificate is centralised idea in this very moment. One average person should (and i belive can) be able to verify is some org. TOP or not , use of TOP definition etc..)
PS. This is step forward IMO indeed. Yet, I hope that in one of the next definitions we will explain some other functional parts that are not involved in this very moment (for an example - idea od certificate is centralised idea in this very moment. One average person should (and i belive can) be able to verify is some org. TOP or not , use of TOP definition etc..)
