Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal
illegale
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.
Serge
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.
Best regards,
Serge
Markus Schatten
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.
Best regards
--
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus....@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
illegale
I am really glad you are interested in participation.
Let me share links: What does TOP mean to you?
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418/#
In this part above we generally discuss over TOP.
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/4a54bfb6539f7049/#
In this part we did set some thoughts of a way how are we going to
discuss over TOP.
http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/2e36b043403287ec/#
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.
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP
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.
ATB,
Gale
illegale
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.
ATB;
Gale
Serge
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
echarp
Open
Public
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.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
illegale
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.
ATB,
Gale
Serge
Modified the wiki over the weekend, tried to keep the elements while
adding some and making it more concise overall. Any comments or
reaction?
Best regards,
Serge
illegale
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..)
ATB,
Gale
illegale
Markus Schatten
Very good corrections indeed ;-)
echarp
That an open organisation allow its public to modify it, not only that,
but that everything must remain openstanding, seem most interesting.
Public, why should anybody on this planet have any right on a TOP
organisation just because he is part of the "public"? Why not limit it
to "its public"? (or participants)
+1
echarp - http://leparlement.org/irc
Serge
Good to see that you think this is going in the right direction.
As to the question of why an open forum, it has several uses. Since we
all agree that deliberation can't involve everyone on the planet
otherwise it gets smothered by the sheer volume of information present,
and that a degree of delegation of the "right to speak" is desirable,
an open forum would act as a direct deliberation tool for these who may
feel their views aren't being heard within the deliberative forum.
Should there be a consensus coming out of a public forum in parallel to
a deliberation, it is certainly something that should be accounted for
in the deliberation.
An open forum would not in any way be a major feature of the
deliberative process of an organisation based on TOP principles but
should be viewed as a guarantee of openness. Its very existence would
probably discourage most attempts at hijacking or manipulating a
debate. One could conceive such a forum as being part of the
organization, yet with independant administrators from these handling
regular info/deliberation/voting, so as to ensure that such an open
forum would be an effective "check and balance".
This is however only my understanding of a concept that was on the page
beforehand, and Gale or Markus may have quite different views on why an
open forum may be needed.
Regards,
Serge
echarp
> Good to see that you think this is going in the right direction.
It's brief and understandable. I definitely like that :)
> As to the question of why an open forum, it has several uses.
>
> ...
>
> An open forum would not in any way be a major feature of the
> deliberative process of an organisation based on TOP principles but
> should be viewed as a guarantee of openness.
>
> ...
>
> This is however only my understanding of a concept that was on the page
> beforehand, and Gale or Markus may have quite different views on why an
> open forum may be needed.
That was also my understanding. Yet I don't see the interest in a
society with a free flow of informations. Anybody can set up and
administer any forum on any subject.
Why then require a forum of someone?
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Markus Schatten
In a phone conversation Gale and me agreed that I should create a
systematization of the discusion about the definition of TOP to see which
parts are essentially important to us.
Since we agreed on two things (if I understood right) about the way how should
the definition be achieved: (1) Strategic planning (Where we are now?, Where
we want to be? How we plan to get there?) and (2) Autopoietic (OpenSource)
approach through editing and adding content to the definition we have on the
wiki (http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP).
Also we agreed (correct me if I am wrong) on the answers to the first two
questions of strategic planning (Where we are now and Where we want to be)
where the answers were that we are in a position where we don't have a good
definition of TOP and we want a definition behind which we will stand 100%.
This answers are only part I know, but let me elaborate further. Now, lets
see how we can achieve the stated in the first two questions (e.g. get the
answer to the third question).
First let me try to state which essential parts came into play during
disscussion.
In the threads "First goal: Definition of
TOP" (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/4a54bfb6539f7049/#),
"Definition of
TOP" (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/2601aa9e132fd542/#),
"What can 4 of us actually do? / What does TOP mean to
you?" (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418?tvc=1)
and "Definition of TOP - need to finish our
goal" (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/303d810256bedea6/36be706d548fff27#36be706d548fff27)
the following issues came to attention which I try to systemize and on which
should be decided:
I. Document elements:
-------------------------
i. The opinion that internet and politics will integrate with one another in
some ways
ii. Gaining some political importance and attract attention
iii. Change the way information in political processes is shared
iv. Change the way people can enter in politics
v. How politics should be held on the internet, or using the internet
vi. Set of rules person/organsation had to carry out if it wants to act in TOP
manner
vii. Transparent action includes publishing, explaining and documenting
appropriate documents of its vision, mission and goal statements of action
including plans and strategies on how to accomplish them. This documents also
include discussion templates, results, conclusions etc.
viii. The main goal of transparent action is a elaborated, total and integral
decision making process transparent and available to the public.
ix. A person, organization or option should have a public forum where the
public can comment the persons, organizations or options action. This forum
must have a fully non censored public part which is continuously and in a
line on-line available. Information on this forum should be public and
allways available for later references e.g. it should be replicable.
x. Open action is such action on which the public has influence i.e. action
which can be changed by the public under the condition that the result of
such a change is open again.
xi. Open action gives every person, option or organization the opportunity of
process involvement.
xii. If some person, option or organization wants to act open, it has to
insure continuous contact and discussion with the public. This is in
accordance with the concept of a forum where the public has the opportunity
to discus and where every single individual is involved through a clearly
distinguishable criteria.
xiii. Every document created through transparent and public action is thus
openstanding.
xiv. Every person, option or organization should take every meaningful
critique, suggestion, comment and idea of the public, discus it and, if they
find it usefull, include it an the appropriate document.
xv. Public action is such action which is available to the public, allways and
at will and which is oriented towards the public.
xvi. If a person, option or organization wants to act public it has to insure
continuous public availability of information about their action.
xvii. Public available information is information which is publicly available
in a clearly articulated form. This information should be available to
everyone interested in it over the Internet. This information can be
available through other mediae but the Internet is obligatory.
xviii. Any official action should be documented in the appropriate document.
xix. A person, option or organization is TOP and can thus become a certificate
if its action is transparent, open and public according to the definition of
TOP and has an elaborated integral decision making process.
xx. TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the
governance of the country or in the conduct of public business.
xxi. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.
xxii. TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among
the public officials or on public matters among private individuals.
xxiii. 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.
xxv. Transparent means 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.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.
xxvi. 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.
xxvii. 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.
xxviii. TOP are principles that define how politics should evolve in the
coming times. They apply on the processes themselves, the electronic
processes. It's a basis of democracy on the net.
xxix. 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.
xxx. Open participation is to allow anybody to enter in the process. No
barrier to entry.
xxxi. There are exceptions to TOP:
* 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.
xxxii. There is one test that could be useful: everything recorded has to be
made public.
xxxiii. 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.
xxxiv. There shall be no prohibition of public employees from having private
discussion on any public matter.
xxxv. All government recorded information should be made public.
xxxvi. All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be
replicated in real time
xxxvii. Transparent, open and public principles supplement each other in
defining the fundamental standards of a genuinely democratic organization.
xxxviii. A transparent organization must ensure full, accurate, and timely
disclosure of actions and information. Its actions and their justifications
must remain intelligible and clear.
Users are able to fully audit any decision, information, process or other
feature of the organization. It therefore implies keeping a record of
discussions, decisions, documents and any other supporting material in an
accessible format. An elaborated, total and integral decision making process
must be defined in accordance with TOP principles. Practically, one who
doesn't know anything about the organization should be able to gain full
knowledge of it, to the point that the organization and its information could
be duplicated should one wish to do so.
xxxix. An open organization, process, action or otherwise can be changed by
any person or entity under the condition that the result of such a change
remains open. Open action gives every person or entity the opportunity to get
involved in the process and propose alterations.
This implies that any open system must be opensource. Furthermore,
discussions, processes, deliberations, documents and any other feature must
remain openstanding.
xl. A public organization, its processes, information and actions must be
accessible without censorship or restrictions to any member of the public.
Accessibility must be ensured at all times over the internet. Information
must be organized so as to allow quick and effective access. Public
information should be available in a clearly articulated form so as to be
accessible to non-specialists.
An uncensored public forum must be made available for comments on the
organization itself. This forum must be maintained so that it remains
transparent, open and public according to the definitions in this document.
xli. An entity is TOP and can thus become a certificate if it demonstrates it
functions in accordance with transparent, open and public principles
according to this document and has an elaborated integral decision making
process.
II. Document structure:
--------------------------
i. Different aspects of TOP (political, sociological, psychological,
organizational, philosophical etc.)
ii. Three essential parts of TOP transparency, openness and publicity.
III. Important issues to consider:
-------------------------------------
i. The definition needs to be clear and catchy in order to penetrate easily
ii. A good definition of TOP is an important start. Decisionmaking should be
the next step.
iii. The definition should guide our future actions
iv. All of us should stand behind the definition 100%
v. The categories of transparent, open and public action are interconnected,
they supplement each other since none of them embraces the whole field needed
by this idea
vi. 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.
vii. 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.
viii. 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
privilege of problem formulae should not be kept by the inner circles.
ix. We should set up standards that can easily distinct initiatives that
enable public participation from those that do not.
x. 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 individuals do not find appropriate
due to any reason to public, the way to realize 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.
xi. Silence majority concept leads to schizophrenia of power, making the whole
process being declarative, not real one. If we want to create system be fully
legitimated, it needs to mediate the power as clear as possible in order to
preserve its status. If it is not being done, power disharmony tends to
destroy legitimacy of such a system.
xii. 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).
xiii. 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 runned publicly. If it wants,
I suppose we should support it also.
xiv. TOP must disable opportunistic behavior in order to succeed.
xv. An important issue about information control is that it is decentralized,
dissabling creation of the centers that are obviously superior to those who
are not informed.
xvi. 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?
xvii. A criteria to determine if an organization is strongly transparent => if
it publishes enough data so as to be able to setup a duplicate organization
of itself. This is particularly useful in democratic settings, where a
duplicability criteria would help in order to audit any process and its data.
xviii. One average person should be able to verify is some organization is TOP
or not
xix. Public, why should anybody on this planet have any right on a TOP
organization just because he is part of the "public"? Why not limit it to
"its public"? (or participants)
----------------------------------------------------
As you can see I tried to shorten down the whole communication about the
definition of TOP concentrating on Elements, Structure and Issues to be
considered (if I missed any important thing please bring it to my attention).
The definition we have (the one on the wiki) is still not satisfactory (even
Serge did a great job in editing it) since some issues weren't considered and
are still not included in the definition. Maybe a good way to approach the
definition would be to imagine todays politicians and political organizations
(in a broad sense) and try to see if this definition excludes non-democratic
and non-TOP entities. IMHO it doesn't. Another issue which hasn't been
included are concrete steps which an organization or individual must make in
order to be TOP.
Since only a little has been proposed about structure I think this should be
our first focus, e.g. how should the definition look like and what should it
cover?
If we create structure we can easily fill the elements of the definition in.
One proposal is to create structure according to different aspects of TOP
e.g. political, sociological, psychological, organizational, philosophical
etc.), maybe this is a start. Or we can focus on the structure we have now
(Introduction, Transparent, Open, Public, Conclusion, References). Any other
proposals?
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> * 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.
Circumscribed, i.e., limited. Circumvention is
what Machiavelli would have tried to do with
regulations prohibiting improper use of secrecy :-), i.e, get around them.
I like the document, what I've read of it, but I
haven't read enough to have a sound overall opinion of it.
illegale
That is a really awesome job you did. Congrats, Markus!
It took me a while to read all of lines. Though, I hope I will find
some more time to work on this post, as long as it asks for rather
serious approach. Good to see things moving on!
ATB,
Gale
Markus Schatten
defining structure first? I had somthing in mind like:
1. Introduction
2. Philosophical aspect
3. Social aspect
4. Political aspect
5. Organizational aspect
6. Informational aspect
7. Psychological aspect
8. Conclusion
9. References
And then to define transparency, openess and publicity in every aspect
and give a guide what to do (from every aspect) to be TOP. In this way
we wouldn't explain TOP by adding apples and oranges but have a nice
formal framework.
Best regards
---
echarp
> 1. Introduction
> 2. Philosophical aspect
> 3. Social aspect
> 4. Political aspect
> 5. Organizational aspect
> 6. Informational aspect
> 7. Psychological aspect
> 8. Conclusion
> 9. References
That's rather large, does it require all that?
What about:
1. Introduction
2. Philosophy
3. Definitions
4. Politics
5. Organisation
6. Conclusion
> And then to define transparency, openess and publicity in every aspect
> and give a guide what to do (from every aspect) to be TOP. In this way
> we wouldn't explain TOP by adding apples and oranges but have a nice
> formal framework.
Cool by me.
But we need to advance with the definition.
*TOP* => Transparent and Open to its Public, or Transparent and Open to
its Participants.
(The "its" would be important to me. Much important than giving rights to
every human on the planet.)
Data flow could then be a coin with two sides:
- transparency: data goes from the system to its participants
- openness: data goes from participants to the system
Participants (or public) can:
- see everything
- act on everything
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>*TOP* => Transparent and Open to its Public, or Transparent and Open to
>its Participants.
>
>(The "its" would be important to me. Much important than giving rights to
>every human on the planet.)
I'm not sure this has been thought all the way through. Consider a
secret society. It has members, to whom it is open. It is plotting
the total domination of all society everywhere, but it is utterly
*not* open to those it would affect with its plans. Could we consider
such an organization "TOP?"
If not, why not? It is transparent and open to its participants. But
not to those it affects. I think that "Public" needs to be defined,
and that, specifically, the "public" is all those affected by an
organization. Pretty much the only way to do this without setting all
kinds of traps and loopholes is to allow membership to be open,
subject to minimal restrications only as necessary to prevent fraud
and impersonation.
AA functions to some extent as a secret society. There are closed
meetings. But, in fact, anyone can attend these meetings, there is no
formal process to keep non-alcoholics out. But, of course, an
imposter -- or party-crasher -- is going to be relatively visible in
small closed meetings. Large meetings tend, much more, to be open,
anyone can attend, including family, therapists, anyone interested.
That's how I know so much about AA, plus a lot of reading. Plus a few
years of experience in organizations that have taken up the AA model,
including being the national conference chair for one. I won't tell
you which one! (Having held such a position confers on me no
authority to speak for the program, and, generally, breaking
anonimity at "the level of press, radio, and TV," is frowned on. With
AA, a few do it, and there are no sanctions, just some widespread disapproval.
I would not consider AA TOP because of the private nature of much of
its function. However, AAWS, the service organization, a nonprofit
corporation responsible to the AA membership, could be (and, I think, it is.)
Generally, the FA/DP organizations I'm proposing *would* be TOP, but
caucuses within them may not be. That is, the members of any caucus
remain free to meet in any manner they choose, including being that
world-domination secret society. If that pulls their chain....
Whatever process takes place at the level of the overall organization
would be open, transparent, and public. I expect.
echarp
/participants/.
All others are non participants, they can be impacted yet this impact is
a matter of *power*, of *respect*. Would a TOP organisation with such
powers be respectful of the right of self determination of others? I
don't know.
I would push for it to be, but how to organise that? It seems so large a
consideration! TOP-N? Transparent and Open to its Public, and *Nice*? ;)
(Oh, my thinking does not only concern FA, but all organisations)
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>Public does need to be defined, and I'm proposing to restrict it to
>/participants/.
Yes. I understood that. And I'm pointing out the problem with this
restriction. *If* anyone affected by the activities of an
organization can join, it is not so much of a problem.
But "transparent and open" when it is secret and closed? I'd say this
would be double-speak.
>All others are non participants, they can be impacted yet this impact is
>a matter of *power*, of *respect*. Would a TOP organisation with such
>powers be respectful of the right of self determination of others? I
>don't know.
Depends, doesn't it? Some would, some not.
I'm not claiming that secret and closed is bad, just that it is not
transparent and open.
>I would push for it to be, but how to organise that? It seems so large a
>consideration! TOP-N? Transparent and Open to its Public, and *Nice*? ;)
No. "Transparent and open to its public," unless "public" means
everyone affected, is not transparent and open. That's pretty simple!
"Nice" has nothing to do with it. You can be very secret and be nice.
But what is secret is not open! -- and claiming that it is would be deceptive.
>(Oh, my thinking does not only concern FA, but all organisations)
Yes, that was obvious. FAs were mentioned because it's been suggested
that FAs are TOP, and I've commented, "Not necessarily." Some would
be, some might not be, and, indeed, it is a bit problematic to call
AA, as an example, TOP. It might still be okay, because anyone can
join AA, there are no dues or fees, how AA works is totally open,
closed meetings are closed by request, not by demand. But if a
non-alcoholic shows up at a closed meeting, and identifies himself as
such, perhaps he's there to "save" them, nobody is going to call the
police. I think. Indeed, there is controversy in AA and similar
programs about meetings that are open only to, for example, women, or
only to men. On the one hand, it is recognized that there is a
usefulness to such meetings, and, on the other, the tradition is
strong that any AA meeting is open to anyone seeking their own
recovery. In the end, meetings are autonomous and are not bound by
organization-wide decisions on how they conduct themselves.
But talking about political organizations, I don't think they can be
secret and closed and be open and transparent at the same time!
Even a clearly TOP organization might find a need under some
circumstances to conduct some business in a private manner. But that
would be an exception, for specific and necessary purpose, and the
existence of the exception would be public record, with the reason
for it. It's the same with governmental meetings, here in the U.S.,
usually. There are laws regulating private meetings. It may be
illegal, for example, for city councilors to sit down privately and
discuss city business with each other, if I'm correct. They can
discuss city business privately with constituents, though.
echarp
>
> At 06:21 PM 9/14/2006, echarp wrote:
>
> >Public does need to be defined, and I'm proposing to restrict it to
> >/participants/.
>
>
> But "transparent and open" when it is secret and closed? I'd say this
> would be double-speak.
>
>
> But talking about political organizations, I don't think they can be
> secret and closed and be open and transparent at the same time!
What happens when China and/or India comes in and wants to participate?
And again, I'm not limiting it to FA which might require a physical
presence.
What of a small city who does not want its larger neighbor to mess with
them from the inside?
Transparent and Open to *its* public.
Or do you owe to be transparent and open to everybody?
I'm just proposing. Yes, I guess it can be problematic.
echarp - http://leparlement.org (v0.8, now with a filter)
Markus Schatten
Emmanuel this part "to it's public" just calls for missinterpretation!
I agre to what Lomax says. There is no way that organizations wolud be
TOP if they would be transparent and open only to it's public.
Gale can tell you a pretty example of this. Some time ago he was in
contact with members of the social party of croatia. According to your
definition they would be TOP, since they have a private forum and
everything is transparent and open to their members. And I can assure
you that there is no party in croatia which is even near to TOP!
So please just drop this idea because it will bring more problems than
any good.
Best regards
MS
illegale
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:38:04PM -0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> What happens when China and/or India comes in and wants to participate?
> And again, I'm not limiting it to FA which might require a physical
> presence.
There are two separate things. Decision making protocol and possiblity
of consulting. So, why not let China and India consult us? If we find
their proposals good, we can benefit, if not, we wont take them.
> What of a small city who does not want its larger neighbor to mess with
> them from the inside?
Its about openness. Do you want to be open, or not?
> Transparent and Open to *its* public.
"Its"? What do you mean by "its"? For an example, our socialist party
in Croatia is not open for its public as long as that would mean whole
population with voting right should need to able to participate. And
not just Croatian, as long as SP is part of international socialist
bodies, where they make decisions for global things. So, who is "its"
public? The whole world I guess. What do you think?
> Or do you owe to be transparent and open to everybody?
>
> I'm just proposing. Yes, I guess it can be problematic.
All in all. You are not an island Emmanuel. You can not deny the
reality where bigger fish eats smaller fish. Where for an example USA
eliminates regimes that are not satisfactory for their politics. That
is the reality based on power supremacy. By ignoring that, you are
missing the whole point. You need solution for that that is not based
on ignorance. And my aproach is to face reality and go on from it.
ATB,
Gale
echarp
> Emmanuel this part "to it's public" just calls for missinterpretation!
As of now, it's a proposition that ask clarifications. Just like TOP
itself.
It's rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much, but being open
to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to people who might just
want to break everything.
What is the qualification for modifications?
Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it
functions can be modified by anybody else?
I'm merely building on serge's proposal of "open". Proposal I really
like, but which would ask to qualify participants.
An example: wiki are very often consultable and modifiable by everyone,
and I guess a generic FA with not many assets could be just the same,
but what of other human associations which might control important
elements. Do you give the power to anybody to control it? Why?
How do you qualify the "open" part of TOP?
echarp - http://leparlement.org
echarp
Please, define openness.
Me, I'm mostly using the current TOP definition proposal (unless I'm
mistaken).
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:38:04PM -0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
> > But talking about political organizations, I don't think they can be
> > secret and closed and be open and transparent at the same time!
>
>What happens when China and/or India comes in and wants to participate?
>And again, I'm not limiting it to FA which might require a physical
>presence.
I'd suggest that "open" could indeed be limited to those reasonably
affected by the organization's activities.
An organization may be of a nature such that membership is
necessarily restricted. But this need not be secret. If it is an open
restriction, and is reasonably related to the purpose of the
organization, I'd say we might still call such an organization "open"
if it is open to the relevant public.
In setting up the Cummington Free Association, an organization which
exists mostly in theory, one a few registered -- so far -- I
considered membership definition. In the end, I came to the
conclusion that anyone could join. Obviously, if they joined, they
were interested in *some way* in Cummington. They might live there,
they might work there, they might patronize a business there or go to
a school there. Or they might just think it an interesting organization.
In an FA, this total openness would be quite practical. In other
organizations? I'm not sure that an association to support a local
library would be thrilled at someone from halfway across the globe
joining and bombarding them with irrelevancies. But that suggests
only certain participation restrictions. They would not be thrilled
from someone from the town where the library is located doing the
same thing.....
"Open," though, is a reasonable term for an organization which
conducts its business openly. It is not essential that membership be
open to all. An engineering association could insist that members be
working engineers, for example. A software support association could
insist that members be licensed users of the software.
>What of a small city who does not want its larger neighbor to mess with
>them from the inside?
Paranoid.
>Transparent and Open to *its* public.
>
>Or do you owe to be transparent and open to everybody?
Either you are open or you are not! If you don't want to be open to
everybody, you are not *open* unless you qualify it. "Open to
Republicans only." "Open membership" implies that anyone may join. We
want to qualify it, we'd advertise, "Open to qualified members."
If I'm correct, we are talking about political organizations,
primarily. "Open" would mean something dovetailing with
"Transparent." I think the intention here is to allow input from
anyone. And if it is politics, I'd suggest that this should mean
"anyone affected," i.e., in the jurisdiction involved, that might be
enough, but we might also note that one jurisdiction can affect
another. The small town not wanting to be bullied by the large town,
and therefore wanting to have closed membership in some town
organization looked at this from one side. But what about the other
side? Should the large town, in its political considerations, allow
input from the small town? Why not?
I'd say that if such input is prohibited, or if there is no channel
for it, it is not open.
Not all organizations should be open! Indeed, not all organizations
should be transparent, either.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>It's rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much,
actually, it's huge....
> but being open
>to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to people who might just
>want to break everything.
(1) "Open" does not mean "open with absolutely no exception." It
means "substantially open, such that the label is not deceptive."
(2) Open does not mean "unconditionally open to modifications by
anyone." There can be a process for approving modifications.
Wikipedia is, frankly, a mess. Some articles are very, very good. But
where there exists substantial controversy, wikipedia has essentially
an "administrators and their delegates are God" position, which means
that if there is an edit war, admins come in and resolve it. However
they please. Right now there is an article that I generally follow
which is quite damaged, because admin decided that links to web sites
that contain advertising are taboo. However, eliminated under this
policy are sites that provide resources to users for discussion and
the dissemination of information, which are advertising-supported. In
other words, they are like newspapers or cnn.com or the like. And
Wikipedia routinely links *from the home page* articles that refer to
cnn.com, for example, for news. So the policy was applied in quite an
arbitrary manner. Why? Well, admins don't like to spend a lot of time
reviewing and deeply considering matters that are not of direct
interest to them. They come in and make a snap judgement. Then they
defend it, which is entirely another matter.
Wikipedia is great. But there are serious problems with "open to
all," if there are not similarly TOP processes for resolving
disputes. I'm sure there is a way to get involved on Wikipedia and to
participate. But I'm also sure that the institutional inertia is
huge. If I see some small problem, I don't want to have to rattle the
cage of the owner.... I want to have a small *easy* process for
dealing with it, something that does not involve personally joining
and learning a whole new world, the world of Wikipedia administration.
The problem could be easily solved. If I knew where admin issue
discussion and policy resolution was taking place (I could find it,
I'm sure, but the whole point is that it should be easy), I could
watch the traffic. I could pick out someone who, it seemed to me, had
a good grasp of the issues, who might effectively represent what I
have to say. Now, right now, I might be able to email or otherwise
contact this person directly. So, informally, such a system already
exists. It is just not *easy*. "Open and transparent" does imply "easy."
It does not mean that automatically I could, myself, set Wikipedia
policy or unilaterally determine article content. The person behind
the edit war on the article in question was actually a person who had
apparently posted a link to his web site, which was, allegedly -- I
didn't verify this myself -- an advertising-oriented site, i.e., was
selling something. Primarily. A user removed the link for that reason
(which may have been in error, but which was in line with Wikipedia
policy. The user then *retaliated* by removing *all* links. And this
went back and forth for quite some time until Wiki admin froze the
article -- or at least the links section --, and then ultimately came
back with a ban on all links with any advertising. Which shut out
what has become, for me, the primary information source on the
subject, because it has thousands of users, many of them experts.
And, yes, every page has an ad on it somewhere.... the site sells
advertising. Like yahoo, google, and most organizations that don't
have some angel behind them, or a strong support structure.
>What is the qualification for modifications?
Well consensus or the consensus of those delegated to make decisions
on behalf of the members, by consensus. Or, *at least*, by majority
approval. This should be on-going, i.e., a consensus at one time
should not prevent a new and different consensus from forming later.
The way I'd generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after
a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the
like, would routinely have the right to make edits. If they abuse the
privilege, a moderator could restrict their right. And that
restriction would be appealable. The exact process would depend on
the size of the org and its nature, but the ultimate authority, if it
is to be fully democratic, is with the assembly as a whole, which may
routinely delegate that authority. With a DP process, there is always
some kind of access to the top, through filters chosen by the member
being restricted.
Non-DP organizations which would still satisfy the due process
requirements to qualify as TOP would still have similar structures.
(And do. Access to the U.S. Congress is through legislators, and
access to the legislators is through staff chosen by the legislators.
If you look at it closely, when it works, it is quite similar to DP,
but with some serious gaps; the basic gap is that the filtering is
not chosen at the bottom, but at the top. There will still be
top-chosen filtering: a high-level proxy does *not*, in the DP
systems we conceive, automatically have an obligation to receive
communication from just anyone, but only from a defined set, those
who have both chosen him *and* he has accepted. The freedom is in
both directions.
Note that if this leaves a certain number of people out, because
nobody will accept them, those people can agree to select a common
proxy, and if enough of them do this, they would routinely have
access to a higher level. But it's not guaranteed: you can be so
isolated in your opinions and so anti-social in your behavior that
nobody wants to talk with you.
And that is exactly how it should be. In an FA/DP organization,
nobody is punished by the organization. Not even criminals. But
people *may* protect themselves, and the organization does not force
any individual to associate with any other.
>Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it
>functions can be modified by anybody else?
The confusion here is between "modification" of the rules and
"proposing modification."
The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules.
Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but
them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance.
>I'm merely building on serge's proposal of "open". Proposal I really
>like, but which would ask to qualify participants.
Organizations can have a qualification process, and if it does not
unreasonably exclude anyone who would be legitimately concerned with
the organization's decisions, the organization could still be called "open."
If the burden of qualification becomes greater than necessary,
however, the label starts to be deceptive.
>An example: wiki are very often consultable and modifiable by everyone,
>and I guess a generic FA with not many assets could be just the same,
An FA may maintain an open wiki, but that does not mean that just
anyone is allowed to modify it regardless. Our wikis are often
subject to insertion of content by spammers, wherever there is a weak
link. The SandBox, for example, in TikiWiki, may be edited by
non-registered users. And so there are spambots which look for open
SandBoxes and fill them with links. Wikis that do not require
password access from validated members (i.e., email address has been
confirmed by response to authentication mail) routinely get totally
replaced by spam links. I learned the hard way. The entire wiki
structure had been taken away, including all the admin access. Yes,
there was a way to recover it, but it was ... tedious.
Members who deliberately and persistently modify pages in a way that
causes an implication of a position being taken by the FA, which has
not, in fact, been taken, can easily see their access restricted.
That is not punishment, it is necessary restriction.
Wikipedia can afford to be *totally* open -- no validation is
necessary -- because they have a huge number of volunteers who can
track down and report IP addresses of spammers and vandals. Most
wikis, however, do require registration. Registration is easy and
open, it does not prevent anyone from joining. Yet it also does allow
the identification of the source of antisocial behavior, and an
organization may decide to sanction such behavior.
"Open" does not mean that every individual can do just whatever he
chooses, with the group resources. It means that every member is free
to express his opinion, within the bounds of propriety, and that
there is a process by which that opinion is filtered. I.e., it is
considered, though not necessarily by the whole organization. Indeed,
in a large organization, that becomes impossible. DP makes almost
total openness possible, regardless of scale, but many other methods
exist and are in use. They just don't scale as well.
"Transparent" and "open" are thus not absolutes, they are relative.
There is a children's educational page in our newspaper, and it,
perhaps unknowingly, had some cartoons in it, about democratic
process, that were hilarious. The page makes games out of the
subjects it examines, word puzzles, mazes, etc. So they had a cartoon
on the right of petition. And it showed a maze, with a letter at one
end and a mailbox on the other end. "Help Betty send a letter to the
mayor," was the caption.
A petition should not have to go through a maze! Yes, there must be a
process, but it must not be unnecessarily difficult to negotiate. A
process might exist, but if it is too difficult, we should not call
the organization "transparent."
>but what of other human associations which might control important
>elements. Do you give the power to anybody to control it? Why?
This is, by the way, the reason why I think that we need to have
large FA/DP organizations before the other major reforms will become
possible. FA/DP organizations merely communicate and advise, they do
not control. Once there is control, there is an attraction for
parasites, and, typically, vulnerable nodes in the system. This
concept of separating communication from control, I think, is
relatively new, though it is really obvious from an information
theory point of view. Control threatens people who perceive
themselves a being likely to be harmed by it, which then distorts
their participation in the communication process that should precede control.
People will still realize that if a position they do not like becomes
a consensus position (i.e., is supported by the large majority of
members), they will not be able to resist it, when the implementation
comes (outside the organization), but there is quite a difference
between being attached to an outcome and being intransigent in
communication about it. Intransigence in communication simply leads
the intrasigent to be excluded and neglected. It backfires. And
high-level proxies will, I'm sure, understand this, and will attempt
to insure that deliberation is complete and includes all relevant
points of view, before the matter is considered settled by the organization.
This will happen, I expect, in non-FAs, and particularly in DP power
control structures. But I'm interested in the process as a
communications one. How can broad consensus be developed? It will not
always be possible, but many times issues are clouded by intransigent
positions that are unsustainable in the light of day. FA/DP
organizations could, using wiki and wiki-like technology, develop
documents which present arguments and analysis in a way that attempts
to make them complete. Unresolved issues are stated as unresolved,
but whatever evidence exists on any side would be made accessible.
With such a document, anyone interested in the issue can find, in an
organized way, the arguments and evidence on all sides.
With the Wikipedia article I mentioned above, there is a huge
controversy outside the article, and it is reflected in the article.
There is an attempt -- this is Wikipedia, after all -- to state the
arguments, but the difficulty of this under Wikipedia rules is so
great that what we get is a farrago of arguments "Pro" and "Con,"
which vastly oversimplifies the situation, and arguments are made
that are, quite simply, unsupportable. But they can be made on
Wikipedia because some "expert" somewhere made the statement. The
analysis necessary to tease apart legitimate arguments (on all sides)
is not really allowed on Wikipedia. What it would take is an
independent site dedicated to analysis, which will include POV pages
or blocks, but in a context which makes clear what is behind all the arguments.
Okay, all this is being said in a vacuum, perhaps I should cite the
article. It is on the "Atkins Nutritional Approach." The article is
generally considered inadequate by most of those interested in it,
but it is extremely difficult, in the Wikipedia context, to improve
it. The Pro/Con division of the article allows deceptive arguments
(arguments that would not be made by a sophisticated and honest
supporter of the position being argued) to stand. After all, these
are, say, Con views that are being expressed out there. Never mind
that they are thoroughly discredited and an embarrassment those who
legitimately oppose the Atkins approach.
The Wikipedia process is inadequate to discover and present consensus
information where there is entrenched controversy. Now, Wikipedians
would answer that Wikipedia is not intended to do this, it is merely
an encyclopedia. However, a standard encyclopedia would never include
the controversial -- and deceptive -- material that one can find in
the article I mentioned. Wikipedia is attempting to transcend
ordinary encyclopedia, and, quite specifically, by converging on
consensus articles where the vast bulk of the material in the article
is solid. In order to do this, Wikipedia needs, among other things,
some kind of editorial process that is not fully distributed, that
includes input from the full public, but which also includes a
decision making process that respects broad consensus and does not
allow isolated opinion to pretend equality with it. This is where
Wikipedia falls short.
However, as I find typical with FA/DP solutions, Wikipedia does not
need to change to ameliorate the situation. An independent Wikipedia
FA/DP organization could do it, and that organization would provide
the analysis needed. As an independent site with pages on the
subjects in Wikipedia, it could be linked from Wikipedia articles,
quite legitimately (you can link to controversial sites; the site I'm
mentioning would not actually be controversial, but people who
dislike inconvenient information would charge that it is). And if
participation in the Wikipedia admin process is necessary, a few
members of this FA could participate.
That is, an independent FA/DP organization can, theoretically and
practically, reform a non-FA, by organizing the members of the latter
independently. FA/DP organizations of shareholders in corporations
could radically reform the often corrupt management of corporations
by management-controlled boards. It is not necessary to change the
actual corporate control proces, which, typically, is already
susceptible to control by the shareholders, collectively. If the
shareholders are organized. Typically, they are not, except to the
extent that a large block of shares is owned by one shareholder, and,
I think, there are companies which do nothing but represent large
institutional shareholders, holding and exercising their proxies, and
these, through multiple clients, do represent a kind of shareholder
organization. But small shareholders are left out of the equation,
and there are so many of them, and they are so easily influenced by
self-interested management,
>How do you qualify the "open" part of TOP?
I went a bit afield above, didn't I? To qualify it requires a fairly
deep discussion. It is fine unqualified, as long as the detailed
description does not take way what any reasonable reader would imply
from the mere use of the term in context. "Transparent, Open, Public."
It is *not* a simple problem. Secret ballot, for example, is not
transparent. If an initiative fails, we don't know who, specifically,
opposed it. It is one thing to use occasional secret ballot to
validate and confirm that an open process is not being distorted by
coercion, direct or subtle, but quite another thing to build a whole
system on it. Indeed, the probability seems high to me that the last
two Presidential elections in the U.S. were distorted by corruption
and error in the election process, producing results opposite to the
actual intention of a majority of voters. Secret ballot systems will
always be vulnerable, to some degree, to this.
So we really should look at why secret ballot is being used. It's
obvious in some contexts, but far from obvious in others. Town
Meeting towns have open, public voting on issues before the town.
Coercion seems to be so rare that it might as well be nonexistent.
There *is* a disconnect between Town Meeting results and results in
secret ballot required by state law, but that disconnect, as far as I
have seen, is sufficiently explained by Town Meeting consisting of
informed voters, with secret ballot being broader and thus including
many votes not benefiting from participation in deliberation.
I would suggest that an organization is not fully TOP unless all
participants are known, or, if not known, then what they contribute
does not control outcomes, it is merely information subject to
verification or rejection by the organization's process. Full TOP may
not be realizable in power structures under present conditions. So I
would think that one needs to develop a series of measures and report
how an organization satisfies the criteria. 100% in all measures may
not be possible outside of FAs. But organizations could
*substantially* satisfy the criteria, and thus legitimately be called TOP.
I know, you'd like to have a clear criterion, such that if they do X,
they are TOP, and if not, they are not. Unfortunately, such clear
criteria are rare with measures that are truly useful.
But an organization which is only open "to its members," if
membership is restricted, is not purely "open."
echarp
>
> actually, it's huge....
It's a big change culturally, but easier than many other possibilities
technically.
> > but being open to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to
> > people who might just want to break everything.
>
> (1) "Open" does not mean "open with absolutely no exception." It
> means "substantially open, such that the label is not deceptive."
Current TOP definition proposal includes an openness to everyone with no
exception.
> The way I'd generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after
> a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the
> like, would routinely have the right to make edits.
You are also "qualifying" participation. I'm doing nothing else.
"Transparent and open to its participants". Data can go to and from a
given public. Of course "public" would need a definition, the best kind
of definition would involve "all people affected"...
A small city does not have to be open to an enterprise who could ask its
employees worldwide to cast a vote or choose a proxy. Or wouldn't that
be incredibly strange and unfair?
> >Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it
> >functions can be modified by anybody else?
>
> The confusion here is between "modification" of the rules and
> "proposing modification."
The right to propose a modification seems silly to me, because we are in
a society where information can already flow freely (except for
copyrights and such stupid things).
> The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules.
> Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but
> them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance.
The concept of TOP organisation includes FAs, it is possible that a TOP
group would be an enterprise, a city or even a country. Then changes
*are* binding!
> >I'm merely building on serge's proposal of "open". Proposal I really
> >like, but which would ask to qualify participants.
>
> Organizations can have a qualification process, and if it does not
> unreasonably exclude anyone who would be legitimately concerned with
> the organization's decisions, the organization could still be called "open."
This is what I am proposing.
The focus should be on the definition of "public"!
> "Open" does not mean that every individual can do just whatever he
> chooses, with the group resources. It means that every member is free
> to express his opinion, within the bounds of propriety, and that
> there is a process by which that opinion is filtered. I.e., it is
> considered, though not necessarily by the whole organization. Indeed,
> in a large organization, that becomes impossible. DP makes almost
> total openness possible, regardless of scale, but many other methods
> exist and are in use. They just don't scale as well.
My concern is not of "one" member misbehaving, it is of organisation A
with 1000 members hijacking organisation B with 100 members.
> > How do you qualify the "open" part of TOP?
>
> I went a bit afield above, didn't I? To qualify it requires a fairly
> deep discussion. It is fine unqualified, as long as the detailed
> description does not take way what any reasonable reader would imply
> from the mere use of the term in context. "Transparent, Open, Public."
What is your definition of Transparent, Open, Public?
> But an organization which is only open "to its members," if
> membership is restricted, is not purely "open."
Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large
body of people.
In a FA this is not important, but in many human organisations, it is!
Public should involve "all people concerned". I don't know if this can
be a proper definition, but at least, it's a start.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> > (1) "Open" does not mean "open with absolutely no exception." It
> > means "substantially open, such that the label is not deceptive."
>
>Current TOP definition proposal includes an openness to everyone with no
>exception.
If there is no exception, if openness is immediate, I can guarantee,
it won't work in truly large organizations. I.e., governmental or
quasi-governmental structures. Town Meeting government is open to
every citizen of the Town, who may appear and speak and vote
personally at Town Meeting. And it starts to break down before
perhaps 100 people in attendance. Town Meeting works because most
people don't go.
Some kind of filtering is necessary. Filtering means that it is no
longer 100% open. It means that there is a process of putting
information before the public, or before a top-level council. If
everyone can add content to a channel, and that channel controls some
asset widely considered important, the channel will, we can be sure,
rapidly become unusable. Totally open newsgroups on usenet worked
great for years, then, gradually, they became filled with spam and
other noise, until legitimate messages were a small fraction of what
was being transmitted.
But if by "openness" you mean that everyone has an opportunity to
input information or requests, through due process, and this process
does insure that the information or request does get a hearing,
though not necessarily by the whole group, then it can work. Indeed,
this is precisely what we propose. We propose filtering by proxies,
who are intermediaries, in general, between the general public and
top level meetings. The proxies are chosen by the people, directly,
not through elections, but they also must maintain collegiality with
their peers, or those peers will stop listening to them, will filter them out.
> > The way I'd generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after
> > a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the
> > like, would routinely have the right to make edits.
>
>You are also "qualifying" participation. I'm doing nothing else.
>
>"Transparent and open to its participants". Data can go to and from a
>given public. Of course "public" would need a definition, the best kind
>of definition would involve "all people affected"...
Yes. However, I would distinguish between membership organizations
and public ones. In a public organization, every member of the public
is, by right, a participant (unless that right is withdrawn for
cause). In a membership organization, participants may be required to
meet some standard. "open to the members" is thus quite different
than "open to the public." If the P in TOP means "Public," you are stuck.
>A small city does not have to be open to an enterprise who could ask its
>employees worldwide to cast a vote or choose a proxy. Or wouldn't that
>be incredibly strange and unfair?
Depends. Once again, we distinguish between power structures and
communications structures, and, in particular, the latter can be Free
Associations (FAs). Delegable Proxy (DP), combined with the FA
traditions, allows total openness. There is nothing strange or unfair
about it, since the FA does not control assets and since any subset
of the FA membership can decide to ignore any other subset. Wisely,
it will do this only when there is an active attempt to sabotage discussion.
A city may, for example, require address verification for
participation. Anyone may join, including people who don't live in
the city. But then it is known who, among those being polled, are
residents, and who are not.
Non-residents are often affected by city decisions. Non-residents,
indeed, may be taxpayers and property owners in the city; one aspect
of present systems in the U.S. is that these have *no* rights to
participate in city decisions. So the city can decide to tax the land
of those who have no right to participate in the decision.... Is this fair?
All I'm pointing out is that such people *do* have a stake in what
the city does. If voting is anonymous, it becomes problematic to
allow nonresidents to participate. But if it is open, not so much of a problem.
> > >Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it
> > >functions can be modified by anybody else?
> >
> > The confusion here is between "modification" of the rules and
> > "proposing modification."
>
>The right to propose a modification seems silly to me, because we are in
>a society where information can already flow freely (except for
>copyrights and such stupid things).
Information flow is not free when it is overwhelmed with noise. In
any case, the systems we imagine would generally allow proposed
modifications to only be made by high-level proxies, in large
organizations, because other members don't have floor rights. They
have the right to vote in polls, they have the right to name proxies,
but organizational rules, determined meeting by meeting, will govern
who has direct access to the meeting (i.e., with a mailing list
meeting, the right to post without moderation).
> > The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules.
> > Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but
> > them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance.
>
>The concept of TOP organisation includes FAs, it is possible that a TOP
>group would be an enterprise, a city or even a country. Then changes
>*are* binding!
Again, not in an FA. *Of course* they may be binding in a TOP organization.
> > >I'm merely building on serge's proposal of "open". Proposal I really
> > >like, but which would ask to qualify participants.
> >
> > Organizations can have a qualification process, and if it does not
> > unreasonably exclude anyone who would be legitimately concerned with
> > the organization's decisions, the organization could still be
> called "open."
>
>This is what I am proposing.
>
>The focus should be on the definition of "public"!
What I'm saying is that, in English, the word "public"
> > "Open" does not mean that every individual can do just whatever he
> > chooses, with the group resources. It means that every member is free
> > to express his opinion, within the bounds of propriety, and that
> > there is a process by which that opinion is filtered. I.e., it is
> > considered, though not necessarily by the whole organization. Indeed,
> > in a large organization, that becomes impossible. DP makes almost
> > total openness possible, regardless of scale, but many other methods
> > exist and are in use. They just don't scale as well.
>
>My concern is not of "one" member misbehaving, it is of organisation A
>with 1000 members hijacking organisation B with 100 members.
Right. In an FA/DP organization that actually is so *easy* that it is
*impossible*. If you don't understand, you haven't been reading what
I've written about it, so why should I repeat. Perhaps you understand....
> > > How do you qualify the "open" part of TOP?
> >
> > I went a bit afield above, didn't I? To qualify it requires a fairly
> > deep discussion. It is fine unqualified, as long as the detailed
> > description does not take way what any reasonable reader would imply
> > from the mere use of the term in context. "Transparent, Open, Public."
>
>What is your definition of Transparent, Open, Public?
I think the term "public" is nearly synonymous with "open."
> > But an organization which is only open "to its members," if
> > membership is restricted, is not purely "open."
>
>Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large
>body of people.
Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important.
But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In
this case, "public" is defined as that body of people who are subject
to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of
them. Including felons, by the way.
>In a FA this is not important, but in many human organisations, it is!
>
>Public should involve "all people concerned". I don't know if this can
>be a proper definition, but at least, it's a start.
That is certainly a start.
We solve the problem in FA/DP organizations by avoiding the issue!
When the organization does not move power, there is no motive for a
person to get 1000 people to join and name him proxy, unless those
people are actually involved *and* will exert power when it it
recommended to him by them. Yes, some will try to bluff, but it will
become rapidly obvious. Independent analysts using the proxy lists
can, for example, discount the entire tree of a suspect proxy,
something that can't be done with the central tools. They can
discount bursts of new members, if they like. Whatever they want.
The central organization is held by trustees who are not involved in
content, they are involved in process. If they abuse their position,
the members simply move elsewhere. DP is what makes this feasible. A
collection of proxies who think the central organization is off can
*immediately* form another organization.
This leaves completely unanswered how the actual power structures
function. And I like it that way. I'd rather see the new systems
designed by the kind of intelligence I expect to arise in large FA/DP
organization!
echarp
> >with 1000 members hijacking organisation B with 100 members.
>
> Right. In an FA/DP organization that actually is so *easy* that it is
> *impossible*. If you don't understand, you haven't been reading what
> I've written about it, so why should I repeat. Perhaps you understand....
I do think I understand what FA are, but I am speaking of organisations
in a much more general fashion. And am particularly including those that
control assets, power.
> Non-residents are often affected by city decisions. Non-residents,
> indeed, may be taxpayers and property owners in the city; one aspect
> of present systems in the U.S. is that these have *no* rights to
> participate in city decisions. So the city can decide to tax the land
> of those who have no right to participate in the decision.... Is this fair?
It is *very* unfair. And I'm asking to define "public" so that it
includes those who are taxed for example. I don't know, it may very well
be an impossible task :(
> All I'm pointing out is that such people *do* have a stake in what
> the city does. If voting is anonymous, it becomes problematic to
> allow nonresidents to participate. But if it is open, not so much of a problem.
If it is open to "hear" what the public says, but then dismisses it
without due process, is it really open?
(in a democratic context, this due process could be a vote)
> >The right to propose a modification seems silly to me, because we are in
> >a society where information can already flow freely (except for
> >copyrights and such stupid things).
>
> Information flow is not free when it is overwhelmed with noise. In
> any case, the systems we imagine would generally allow proposed
> modifications to only be made by high-level proxies, in large
> organizations, because other members don't have floor rights. They
> have the right to vote in polls, they have the right to name proxies,
> but organizational rules, determined meeting by meeting, will govern
> who has direct access to the meeting (i.e., with a mailing list
> meeting, the right to post without moderation).
DP is here to increase the signal/noise ratio. But I think any
participant should be able to propose anything. It will get interest if
more people look it up and vote for it.
> What I'm saying is that, in English, the word "public"
Sorry, this was lost, can you elaborate?
Do public always include everybody? Can "public" be a subset of
"everybody"?
> I think the term "public" is nearly synonymous with "open."
If it is, then maybe we should drop it.
> >Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large
> >body of people.
>
> Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important.
> But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In
> this case, "public" is defined as that body of people who are subject
> to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of
> them. Including felons, by the way.
I agree 100%
But then, it does not include people who are not subject to the
sovereignty of the government!
> We solve the problem in FA/DP organizations by avoiding the issue!
> When the organization does not move power, there is no motive for a
> person to get 1000 people to join and name him proxy, unless those
> people are actually involved *and* will exert power when it it
> recommended to him by them.
I agree, and it is a fine system. But I'm also considering power
structures. Those that use coercion to control us, or that define what
is legal and what is not, or that control infrastructures.
> This leaves completely unanswered how the actual power structures
> function. And I like it that way. I'd rather see the new systems
> designed by the kind of intelligence I expect to arise in large FA/DP
> organization!
You sidestep the whole notion of "power", in an ideal world, who/what
would have power? Individuals? Caucuses?
I'm interested. I definitely am interested in a panarchy, but I think
power structures have to be designed.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>I do think I understand what FA are, but I am speaking of organisations
>in a much more general fashion. And am particularly including those that
>control assets, power.
Yes. And in discussing this, when we mention what is required for
organizations in general, and the requirement is not necessary for
FAs, then I mention this.
It is an entirely new realization, though, as far as I know, that any
democratic power structure could be enhanced by having a parallel FA.
Indeed, many nondemocratic organizations could benefit. A for-profit
corporation could benefit, as would its stockholders, employees and
customers, by having a parallel "interest group" that is an FA/DP organization.
The corporation is not TOP, except as required by law and as the
stockholders, through the Board, determine is in the interests of the
corporation. The FA/DP organization, though, is TOP, practically by
definition. (FA/DP organizations might still have a membership
requirement, though generally it is self-defined; having a
credentials committee or officer creates a potential for distortion.)
You can be anyone interested in the corporation and its products or
services. Including a competitor. Obviously, the members of the FA
who are, say, employees of the corporation, are not generally going
to reveal trade secrets to the FA. However, they *might* reveal them
to selected customers, as they now do. The difference is that it
becomes possible to have a few representatives of *all* customers.
And all employees. And all shareholders. And, indeed, all interested
competitors. DP is should make this kind of thing possible on a large scale.
From another point of view, DP should make it possible for an
ordinary person, with no staff, to belong to hundreds of interest
groups and still maintain functionality in each, without going insane
from the traffic.
> > Non-residents are often affected by city decisions. Non-residents,
> > indeed, may be taxpayers and property owners in the city; one aspect
> > of present systems in the U.S. is that these have *no* rights to
> > participate in city decisions. So the city can decide to tax the land
> > of those who have no right to participate in the decision.... Is this fair?
>
>It is *very* unfair. And I'm asking to define "public" so that it
>includes those who are taxed for example. I don't know, it may very well
>be an impossible task :(
Deciding to go with FA/DP and setting aside the question of the power
structure cuts through this Gordian knot. This is, I believe, a
critical realization: if the public is organized, it can control
almost any reasonably democratic structure. It can even, as
necessary, overthrow tyrants and dictators, and relatively easily.
The problem is organizing the public. In history, it has happened in
a spontaneous, relatively transient manner, and typically with some
"vanguard" organization that was able to lead the revolution, powered
by a general public desire for change. Unfortunately, all too often,
that vanguard becomes the new oppressor. Because the problem was
never identified and addressed: how to organize the public *without*
setting up a new oligarchy.
What does it mean that the public is organized? Does it mean that it
is subject to the authority of some leader? That's not public
organization, in the meaning I'm using, that is dictatorship. Very
efficient. And also very limited in intelligence. Big, stupid,
dangerous. (Its "efficiency" means that terrible mistakes can quickly
be made that would be avoided if the people involved had any say in
the matter.)
Modern democracies in general have set up structures that create
oligarchies. Because the public is not organized *outside* of
government, government ends up regulating itself, and organized
special interest groups have an advantage, through the media, of
exerting influence against the general public interest. Were the
public organized, each of these SIGs would be what it should be: a
voice for a special interest, able to influence through argument and
information, unable to overpower and deceive through an excess of
spending in the media. The public has more resources.
So if the public were well-informed and well-advised, which is a
product of the kind of organization I'm talking about, it does not
need changes in the power structures, though it can easily make them
if it so decides. The problem with present power structures is simply
the absence of a structured public intelligence, not of means whereby
the public can control governments. The means exist, but the
intelligence and coordination necessary to use them does not,
generally, exist, except in defective ways that are themselves
vulnerable to manipulation.
This is why I'm promoting FA/DP: it postpones finding ideal solutions
to the problem of government but instead focuses on what should be a
precondition: an awakened body politic. "Awakened" does not mean that
everybody is actively engaged in politics. That's not going to
happen, nor should it happen. But it does mean that people become
*connected* with government in away that has never before been
possible in large jurisdictions.
>If it is open to "hear" what the public says, but then dismisses it
>without due process, is it really open?
No. So due process is part of the picture.
>(in a democratic context, this due process could be a vote)
Right. But not just a vote, it means the full deliberative process.
In large organizations with broad interests, like a government, much
of this process is delegated to committees, and from there to
subcommittees, etc. Again, these are methods of noise control.
Everyone cannot consider everything at the same time.
>DP is here to increase the signal/noise ratio. But I think any
>participant should be able to propose anything. It will get interest if
>more people look it up and vote for it.
But if it is hidden in 126,547 proposals made the same day?
Yes, anyone should be able to propose anything. But not necessarily
to the whole public at once. Which is next to useless anyway. Rather,
to structures that receive and respond to input. Not just "Yes" or
"No," which is what you get from a vote, but "This is why we have not
accepted your suggestion," followed by an explanation that shows the
suggestion was considered and was rejected after due consideration.
I've seen what happens with present governmental structures: you get
back a "No," and what it amounts to is, simply, "No." Often it makes
no sense, all it means is that some bureaucrat or committee, for
unknown reasons, rejected it. I'm involved with a local initiative
for a Chinese language immersion charter school. The group has
satisfied all legal requirements. The proposal was rejected. Why?
Well, comments were given, as well as the committee vote. It was
clear from examining this that there was one member of the committee
who simply did not want the proposal to get through; the votes on
numerous measures were something like 8 to 1. The committee does not
make the decision, staff does. And the staff decided based,
apparently, on the negative comments of one member. I will guess that
there is a whole lot of politics involved, including a general bias
against charter schools on the part of the dominant political party
in our state. Frustrating, because the objections that seem to have
influenced the decision were essentially ... not based on an
understanding of what an immersion language program is....
What is needed is a communications structure, it is actually more
important than control. If you can communicate, you can control,
presuming that the resources are available to those who communicate.
> > What I'm saying is that, in English, the word "public"
>
>Sorry, this was lost, can you elaborate?
>
>Do public always include everybody? Can "public" be a subset of
>"everybody"?
No. Unless you specifically define it in the usage. For example, the
English-speaking public is only that part of the public which speaks English.
> > I think the term "public" is nearly synonymous with "open."
>
>If it is, then maybe we should drop it.
Maybe. But "open" could mean "open to members," and then "public"
means that anyone many join. You can then have organizations which
are TO but not TOP.
> > >Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large
> > >body of people.
> >
> > Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important.
> > But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In
> > this case, "public" is defined as that body of people who are subject
> > to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of
> > them. Including felons, by the way.
>
>I agree 100%
>
>But then, it does not include people who are not subject to the
>sovereignty of the government!
Yes. We are talking about governments here, and the government is not
controlled by people who are not subject to it. That's pretty basic.
Rather, there are, or should be, organizations above the government
in question, until there is a government of the world, which everyone
is subject to. We don't really have that now, some people think we
shouldn't. I think it's possible without oppression, but it is not
where we should start. If we set up a government without knowing how
to run the institutions on a large scale, except through methods
which are known to break down at a large scale and over time, a world
government could indeed be seriously oppressive, with no opportunity
to escape. One again, we finesse the problem by starting with Free
Associations.
The structures that can be proven to work in Free Associations can be
adapted for use in power structures. DP is one obvious example. In a
power structure, it is very close to what is standard in business:
proxy democracy. DP makes it scalable. But FAs may show that much of
what we take for granted as necessary, i.e., coercion, is not
necessary, is not even truly functional. And maybe they won't. But I
think they will. We won't know until we try it....
>[...]I agree, and [FA/DP] is a fine system. But I'm also considering power
>structures. Those that use coercion to control us, or that define what
>is legal and what is not, or that control infrastructures.
Yes. What I'm saying is that we need to solve the communication
problem first, before we will know very well how to solve the power
control problem.
> > This leaves completely unanswered how the actual power structures
> > function. And I like it that way. I'd rather see the new systems
> > designed by the kind of intelligence I expect to arise in large FA/DP
> > organization!
>
>You sidestep the whole notion of "power", in an ideal world, who/what
>would have power? Individuals? Caucuses?
Individuals will have individual power, which becomes mass power
through caucuses, which find consensus through communication and
deliberation. The public *has* power, already, but it has no
communications structure suitable for coordinating that power.
Because an FA does not control its members -- it is specifically
*not* a government, it is not even an organization in some
traditional senses -- it cannot prevent a caucus from forming and
acting. However, the context of an FA/DP organization makes it
desirable to find consensus to the degree possible *before* acting,
lest the action be opposed and therefore lessened in strength.
>I'm interested. I definitely am interested in a panarchy, but I think
>power structures have to be designed.
They do. And I'm suggesting that the problem of the design of power
structures is extremely difficult, compared to the problem of
designing communications structures. And communications structures,
theoretically, should make it possible not only to design far better
power structures, but also to implement them.
What has always happened in revolutions is that change has come
through some new idea of how to organize the people, how to run a
government. That new idea hasn't actually been tried in the context
involved, typically. And quite frequently the law of unintended
consequences does its dirty work, and people end up, often, worse of
than before. The FA/DP "revolution" does *not* contain an idea of how
to run the government. Rather, it simply makes it possible for people
to come to an agreement about this, as well as about many other
issues. You could call that an "idea of how to run the government,"
but it does not specify detail. At all. It could be that the people
would agree that John Q. Messiah is the best person to run the
government. I rather doubt it, but if a majority of people want this,
and stick to it, the minority cannot resist it. A distributed
majority, in the U.S., has the power to amend the U.S. constitution.
It is commonly misunderstood that it requires a supermajority. It
does not. It requires 3/4 of the *states* to agree. Which can be,
actually, *less* than a majority *of the people,* by quite a margin....
(But, of course, if it is only a thin majority, and those opposed are
so opposed that they are willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent
it, we'd have quite a mess, wouldn't we? The danger of majority rule
is that a determined minority can make life hell for everyone.
Tyranny of the majority is just as dangerous as tyranny by oligarchs.)
Serge
Most points seem valid, but I hope you won't take offense if I point
out it's not a very engaging read. I do believe that the medium is
(half) the message, and that for TOP to have any kind of traction with
the public, its message must be absolutely as concise and clear as
possible.
As you point out, and rightly so, my definition of TOP has elements
missing. Surely some elements would need to be added, and others
removed . However, expanding the level of detail beyond what consitutes
the core of TOP for this introductory statement would be a mistake for
two main reasons:
- While exceptions and numerous other things do need to be addressed,
bundling everything in the same document will only make it unpalatable
to anyone new to the discussion.
- While we can all agree on the fundamental meaning and goals of TOP
politics, we need to be cautious about trying to include details from
the start, as these details will probably be the points on which we
disagree rather than the essentials - and uselessly delay agreement on
these essential points.
Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the same
thing. I'll add that transparency is similar too. In my understanding,
the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency),
openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It is
interesting to notice that controlling either information, system
infrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methods
of hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems. So how about
creating a dedicated reference document for each of the three founding
TOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and not
try to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies?
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP
best regards,
Serge
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the same
>thing. I'll add that transparency is similar too.
Indeed. "Transparency" is equivalent to "open," in some meanings.
Each term, however, does approach the matter from a different
perspective. "Transparent" is about access to information. "Open" is
about freedom of expression, it seems, though it also refers to
transparency. And "Public" implies that there are not relevant access
restrictions. That is, if access is restricted, it does not restrict
access to those who have a legitimate need to know and a legitimate
right to participate.
> In my understanding,
>the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency),
>openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It is
>interesting to notice that controlling either information, system
>infrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methods
>of hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems. So how about
>creating a dedicated reference document for each of the three founding
>TOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and not
>try to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies?
I do agree that a simple document explaining what TOP is about is
necessary, and that simple document should have an introduction,
perhaps a splash page, which is *extremely* simple. And, hopefully, engaging.
I'll just add one comment: an organization may be TOP, as it seems we
more or less agree on, but still be effectively closed if necessary
information is buried in the noise, and if access to the
decision-making structures, i.e., providing input, is likewise
suffering from conflicting noise. Indeed, a mindless TOP, i.e.,
totally open, no restrictions, is not going to work on a large scale.
It can work fine on a small scale, and indeed, it *often* works quite
well. Take that complete openness and increase the scale, the TOP
principles lose their effect. You can't find the information you need
because it is buried in thousands of irrelevant posts. You can't get
heard because you post amid those thousands, and nobody with the
necessary knowledge and inclination to respond notices it.
Frankly, I think DP is *necessary* before true large-scale TOP
organizations will be practical. FA/DP provides all the TOP
principles (though it does depend somewhat on the details of an
organization, but, as we have discussed, power structures may be a
different story. Still, DP can apply there, and a parallel FA/DP
organization to *whatever* power structure can effectively make the
*combination* TOP. That is the theory, and that is the BeyondPolitics vision.
The corporate power structure, which has proxy democracy at its base,
is not open to the public, though aspects of it may be public record.
However, an FA/DP organization of shareholders, if it allows public
participation -- and there is no reason not to, any private
information can be shared in closed meetings, which any caucus has
the right to hold -- would make the *combination* TOP. And if you
were the owner of a corporation, wouldn't you want to know how the
public perceives the corporation, and wouldn't you want it to be open
to suggestions from customers, and to potential lawful cooperation
with competitors?
FAs *advise*, they do not control.
Serge
Your reply seems to show that a definition of transparency / open /
public as separate parts would remain necessary, however close their
principle are could be useful. Using only the word open seems to have
triggered the misunderstanding that it would be a "mindless" opening,
while the transparency definition does state at this point that:
"A transparent organization must ensure full, accurate, and timely
disclosure of actions and information. Its actions and their
justifications must remain intelligible and clear."
Also I agree with your statement that delegable proxy can and should be
used to reduce noise etc, as has been discussed and agreed in previous
posts.
regards,
Serge
echarp
> >in a much more general fashion. And am particularly including those that
> >control assets, power.
>
> Yes. And in discussing this, when we mention what is required for
> organizations in general, and the requirement is not necessary for
> FAs, then I mention this.
>
> It is an entirely new realization, though, as far as I know, that any
> democratic power structure could be enhanced by having a parallel FA.
> Indeed, many nondemocratic organizations could benefit. A for-profit
> corporation could benefit, as would its stockholders, employees and
> customers, by having a parallel "interest group" that is an FA/DP organization.
In France a concept looks similar to this => cooperatives. They are a
reminiscence of the 1871 Parisian revolution called "la
commune":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune, in which they
implemented the first enterprises under auto gestion.
Today, there are still remnants, and I know of enterprises which operate
normally, but are in fact controlled by the workers. In one of them,
called "easter eggs":http://www.easter-eggs.org, the employees created
an association which controls the enterprise.
But even if that association only counseled, I believe it would still
become a place of power. Because those that are heard can change
everything!
What would then become of your ideas and your intention to sidestep the
issue of power?
> Deciding to go with FA/DP and setting aside the question of the power
> structure cuts through this Gordian knot. This is, I believe, a
> critical realization: if the public is organized, it can control
> almost any reasonably democratic structure. It can even, as
> necessary, overthrow tyrants and dictators, and relatively easily.
If it *controls* anything, then it becomes a center of attention and
power!!!
> So if the public were well-informed and well-advised, which is a
> product of the kind of organization I'm talking about, it does not
> need changes in the power structures, though it can easily make them
> if it so decides. The problem with present power structures is simply
> the absence of a structured public intelligence, not of means whereby
> the public can control governments. The means exist, but the
> intelligence and coordination necessary to use them does not,
> generally, exist, except in defective ways that are themselves
> vulnerable to manipulation.
I'm proposing to use the internet for communication. It's the revolution
that has the power and energy to change everything in human society.
> This is why I'm promoting FA/DP: it postpones finding ideal solutions
> to the problem of government but instead focuses on what should be a
> precondition: an awakened body politic. "Awakened" does not mean that
> everybody is actively engaged in politics. That's not going to
> happen, nor should it happen. But it does mean that people become
> *connected* with government in away that has never before been
> possible in large jurisdictions.
Have you read "the clue train manifesto":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cluetrain_Manifesto?
What is your opinion on those ideas?
> >If it is open to "hear" what the public says, but then dismisses it
> >without due process, is it really open?
>
> No. So due process is part of the picture.
>
> >(in a democratic context, this due process could be a vote)
>
> Right. But not just a vote, it means the full deliberative process.
We are in a society where information can flow freely, thus I'm mostly
concerned with the vote itself.
I know I know, you want to organise that flow, thus the proxy-client
relationship. Yet there are already many many ways to communicate:
newspapers, blogs, radio, tv, phones, books, forums, chat rooms, instant
messaging, meetings etc.
Isn't the proxy-client relationship mostly a blog and its associated
news feed? What if you add into that mails, instant messaging, phone,
real life meeting?
I'm mostly interested in DP as a way to organise votes and propositions,
through an increase in the signal/noise ratio. FAs would just be one
place, but I consider all organisations interesting.
> >DP is here to increase the signal/noise ratio. But I think any
> >participant should be able to propose anything. It will get interest if
> >more people look it up and vote for it.
>
> But if it is hidden in 126,547 proposals made the same day?
It will remain hidden unless/until it gathers votes and appears on the
radar of more people.
> Yes, anyone should be able to propose anything. But not necessarily
> to the whole public at once. Which is next to useless anyway. Rather,
> to structures that receive and respond to input. Not just "Yes" or
> "No," which is what you get from a vote, but "This is why we have not
> accepted your suggestion," followed by an explanation that shows the
> suggestion was considered and was rejected after due consideration.
"parlement" is used to propose and vote, but it is designed as a forum.
Thus no problem.
> What is needed is a communications structure, it is actually more
> important than control. If you can communicate, you can control,
> presuming that the resources are available to those who communicate.
I mostly agree yes. Control occurs through communication (unless a would
be dictator developed god like powers).
> >Do public always include everybody? Can "public" be a subset of
> >"everybody"?
>
> No. Unless you specifically define it in the usage. For example, the
> English-speaking public is only that part of the public which speaks English.
Then "everybody" include everybody on the planet. That means you give
control to the largest body of people who might have any sort of
interest in your organisation. I'm speaking of any kind of organisation,
including those that have some sort of power.
What of a small organisation being "attacked" by a much larger one?
(again, I'm speaking of organisations that have some kind of power)
> > > >Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large
> > > >body of people.
> > >
> > > Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important.
> > > But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In
> > > this case, "public" is defined as that body of people who are subject
> > > to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of
> > > them. Including felons, by the way.
> >
> >I agree 100%
> >
> >But then, it does not include people who are not subject to the
> >sovereignty of the government!
>
> Yes. We are talking about governments here, and the government is not
> controlled by people who are not subject to it. That's pretty basic.
It is, and this is what I'm speaking about!!!
> The structures that can be proven to work in Free Associations can be
> adapted for use in power structures. DP is one obvious example. In a
> power structure, it is very close to what is standard in business:
> proxy democracy. DP makes it scalable. But FAs may show that much of
> what we take for granted as necessary, i.e., coercion, is not
> necessary, is not even truly functional. And maybe they won't. But I
> think they will. We won't know until we try it....
I think you would discover that a FA that reaches any sort of political
usefulness will become a center of attention, a power structure.
Ever heard of "ATTAC":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attac? It is such an
association. And lately it has come under the scrutiny of many.
(note, attac is definitely not TOP, as it is statutorily controlled by
its founders)
> >[...]I agree, and [FA/DP] is a fine system. But I'm also considering power
> >structures. Those that use coercion to control us, or that define what
> >is legal and what is not, or that control infrastructures.
>
> Yes. What I'm saying is that we need to solve the communication
> problem first, before we will know very well how to solve the power
> control problem.
And what I'm starting to fear is that any human institution of relevance
will gather power and have power control problems.
> >I'm interested. I definitely am interested in a panarchy, but I think
> >power structures have to be designed.
>
> They do. And I'm suggesting that the problem of the design of power
> structures is extremely difficult, compared to the problem of
> designing communications structures. And communications structures,
> theoretically, should make it possible not only to design far better
> power structures, but also to implement them.
Power structures occur everywhere humans are. I'm sure AA have those
too. I'm sure some organiser is using it for his own benefit, somewhere,
somehow.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
illegale
echarp wrote:
> > Its about openness. Do you want to be open, or not?
>
> Please, define openness.
>
> Me, I'm mostly using the current TOP definition proposal (unless I'm
> mistaken).
Ill try to explain how I see it, eventhough it seems to me Lomax and I
share some thougths about it.
Opennes like open system, like open source when you have it installed
at computer. It is open indeed, yet it works fine. You have firewall
based on open source, anti virus programs etc. So, opennes does not
forbid right on info/participation to any programer to do with it
whatever he wants /we can mention licences in the same manner as we can
do it in politics and remain TOP by definition/ and to keep it open,
yet it remains being autopoietic as long as it has some
defensive/antialopoietic mechanisms based on the same openness.
In example of big city versus small city. This is the moment we define
legitimated body that decides on the future of something. You can also
do it using TOP principles. Of course, there is a talk about power
generating, current legitimacy etc. And we can accept todays process of
current legitimation, yet process that u use for attachment is based on
TOP/ we can say open source principle/.
And todays articulated legitimate body for small city are people from
that small city, not people from big city, nor people from India or
China. Yet you have the whole process TOP so, they can see and
participate. You as current legitimate body can take what you like, do
not take what you do not like.
It is same to any virtual or existing organisation, that is actually
based on principle of autopoietic independent individual who can
participate in bigger bodies/organisations as long as it fits to him.
Everything based on FA, or current legitimated bodies that are already
defined. BTW, I can notice FA can care obligations, responsibility,
agreements etc that are probably not so popular by the word Free. Yet,
it is your free choice on the free market to make free decision with
yourself. You have freedom to make obligation even.
I hope I drow the line that makes this more articulated from my point
of view.
illegale
> At 06:00 PM 9/15/2006, echarp wrote:
> >It's rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much,
>
> actually, it's huge....
>
> discussion and policy resolution was taking place (I could find it,
> I'm sure, but the whole point is that it should be easy), I could
> watch the traffic. I could pick out someone who, it seemed to me, had
> a good grasp of the issues, who might effectively represent what I
> have to say. Now, right now, I might be able to email or otherwise
> contact this person directly. So, informally, such a system already
> exists. It is just not *easy*. "Open and transparent" does imply "easy."
Yes. That part is not transparent, and we can not say is it open as
there is no evidence for it :)
> >What is the qualification for modifications?
>
> Well consensus or the consensus of those delegated to make decisions
> on behalf of the members, by consensus. Or, *at least*, by majority
> approval. This should be on-going, i.e., a consensus at one time
> should not prevent a new and different consensus from forming later.
What I can notice, any group of people can choose whatever decision
making procedure they might find most satisfying for their activities.
Those that are more delibrative and including might be slower, yet they
might handle larger brain trust. So, it depends on specific needs.
> The way I'd generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after
> a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the
> like, would routinely have the right to make edits. If they abuse the
> privilege, a moderator could restrict their right. And that
> restriction would be appealable. The exact process would depend on
> the size of the org and its nature, but the ultimate authority, if it
> is to be fully democratic, is with the assembly as a whole, which may
> routinely delegate that authority.
This part when you set fully parcipative decision process in definition
of org, you can say that you have fully democratic organisation. This
would mean that for an example sd2 or some other algorithm for decision
making functions that good it can rebalance itslef, learn and grow.
What I can notice, current mechanisms such as slashdot is, are not such
structures, yet they are trying to develop such procedure that wont
need recalculations. In this moment, carmic whores as viruses find weak
spots and do they work. So current big organisations have this part
only as attachment for their inside decision making process.
IMO, this is basic difference between Lomax and Marks aproach is that
Lomax is letting free process, ebabling autopoietic, selforganasing
basic unit uf humankind, human has possiblity to learn and grow,
participate and do a rebalance of political power towards
decentralisation which is good and possible in this very moment also.
In the other hand SD2 is routine that might go wrong, as long as nobody
tested, it can be hijacked and effort of individuals that base their
work on SD2 can be banalised pretty heavily. So, my opinion is that we
can not go this way in this very moment, at least we can not put bet on
precisely SD2 as long as by letting basic principles of such free
system combined with open source get alive, we can not go wrong. So,
SD2 for testing and some not so important issues, yes. Basing the
process, no.
BTW, there is an example for SD2 I could use right now. In open system
such as forum is in TOP communication with some TOP organisation,
concept of public could be measured on such way, in other words such
TOP organisation could put SD2 reprensetative to be included in exact
decision making process. In that way we can optimise such process and
develop others.
> With a DP process, there is always
> some kind of access to the top, through filters chosen by the member
> being restricted.
>
> Non-DP organizations which would still satisfy the due process
> requirements to qualify as TOP would still have similar structures.
> (And do. Access to the U.S. Congress is through legislators, and
> access to the legislators is through staff chosen by the legislators.
> If you look at it closely, when it works, it is quite similar to DP,
> but with some serious gaps; the basic gap is that the filtering is
> not chosen at the bottom, but at the top.
Yes. Unless we develop TOP organisation that grew from the first moment
on TOP, letting everybody do freely what they want, enabling concurency
such as versions of Linux there are. We can talk about TOP parties that
can enter elections and gain state legimacy. This process means getting
on free political market to TOP and such party would not mean Internet
democracy.
Yet, such party could strongly empower this TOP political proces,
enabling much larger pluralism, elimination of
oligarchical/birocratical elements that stand between public and
political enterprise, which would mean movement.
In such space, with empowered citizens and tested protocols of bottom
up delegation/ or other legitimation and formalisation of empowerment/
those protocols that would gain mostly legitimated bodies and force
behind it, could become state arbiters /in Internet democracy, I find
concept of arbiters in solving conflicts best, as long as arbiters can
gain political power/influence/legitimation of wider public.
> And that is exactly how it should be. In an FA/DP organization,
> nobody is punished by the organization. Not even criminals. But
> people *may* protect themselves, and the organization does not force
> any individual to associate with any other.
>
> >Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it
> >functions can be modified by anybody else?
>
> The confusion here is between "modification" of the rules and
> "proposing modification."
>
> The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules.
> Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but
> them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance.
+1
> >I'm merely building on serge's proposal of "open". Proposal I really
> >like, but which would ask to qualify participants.
>
> Organizations can have a qualification process, and if it does not
> unreasonably exclude anyone who would be legitimately concerned with
> the organization's decisions, the organization could still be called "open."
>
> If the burden of qualification becomes greater than necessary,
> however, the label starts to be deceptive.
Let me try this way. When you say open, you mean you call other to help
you in building public legitimation of any decision. This is actually
linkage to common good concept. So, this does not mean you will accept
everyone/noone as long as it is not possible and it is undrestood. Yet,
if you are not going pro commong good, there are some chances you wont
be able to legitimate decision by TOP organisation. I believe this is
the reason transparency is not popular especially among those who are
aware of going against the common good. And vice versa.
> "Open" does not mean that every individual can do just whatever he
> chooses, with the group resources. It means that every member is free
> to express his opinion, within the bounds of propriety, and that
> there is a process by which that opinion is filtered. I.e., it is
> considered, though not necessarily by the whole organization. Indeed,
> in a large organization, that becomes impossible. DP makes almost
> total openness possible, regardless of scale, but many other methods
> exist and are in use. They just don't scale as well.
Absolutelly. If there is no people who could be interested in product
you openly offer, you can not gain power. If you can not gain power,
you are politically irrelevant. So, by being TOP, you let public be the
final arbiter in whole. And this is characteristic of true democracy,
IMO.
> "Transparent" and "open" are thus not absolutes, they are relative.
> There is a children's educational page in our newspaper, and it,
> perhaps unknowingly, had some cartoons in it, about democratic
> process, that were hilarious. The page makes games out of the
> subjects it examines, word puzzles, mazes, etc. So they had a cartoon
> on the right of petition. And it showed a maze, with a letter at one
> end and a mailbox on the other end. "Help Betty send a letter to the
> mayor," was the caption.
>
> A petition should not have to go through a maze! Yes, there must be a
> process, but it must not be unnecessarily difficult to negotiate. A
> process might exist, but if it is too difficult, we should not call
> the organization "transparent."
Indeed. Yet, common sense can set some basic tasks in front of such
organisation that can be easily measurable/recognised. Deeper we enter
into this process, more prone we are to "leaches". Of course, we do
not need optimal, but only effective process going on. No optimum in
openness, I can notice. If that was so, time would probably be stopped
:)
> >How do you qualify the "open" part of TOP?
>
> It is *not* a simple problem. Secret ballot, for example, is not
> transparent. If an initiative fails, we don't know who, specifically,
> opposed it. It is one thing to use occasional secret ballot to
> validate and confirm that an open process is not being distorted by
> coercion, direct or subtle, but quite another thing to build a whole
> system on it. Indeed, the probability seems high to me that the last
> two Presidential elections in the U.S. were distorted by corruption
> and error in the election process, producing results opposite to the
> actual intention of a majority of voters. Secret ballot systems will
> always be vulnerable, to some degree, to this.
If you have secrecy in some base, than you do not allow system to learn
from its own mistakes. That is the important reason I am against any
form of secrecy in political life. Other one is actually based to doubt
that such secret ballot could ever gain legitimacy as process. It goes
against the essence of TOP org.
> I would suggest that an organization is not fully TOP unless all
> participants are known, or, if not known, then what they contribute
> does not control outcomes, it is merely information subject to
> verification or rejection by the organization's process.
Interesting. If you want to make it "earthy", you have to link it to
capital from reality, such as somebodies identity it is. But, could you
develop virtual TOP organisation also? If not, why not? The basic
principle of TOP and paradigmatic difference to current orgs is sharing
instead of controling info in order of gaining power, anyway.
> Full TOP may
> not be realizable in power structures under present conditions. So I
> would think that one needs to develop a series of measures and report
> how an organization satisfies the criteria. 100% in all measures may
> not be possible outside of FAs. But organizations could
> *substantially* satisfy the criteria, and thus legitimately be called TOP.
You might be right.
> I know, you'd like to have a clear criterion, such that if they do X,
> they are TOP, and if not, they are not. Unfortunately, such clear
> criteria are rare with measures that are truly useful.
Hmh. This task is certainly not easy one, yet I do not find it
impossible to be done. For an example, if Croatian socialists open
their non-public forum to public and they enable free participation to
others and in the same moment enable individuals from party to gain
power base on informed citizens, some very important thing is done in
that way for sure.
In the same time, you can have some other party that has same
possiblities that are not being used, where public only comments and
nobody is listening, yet there you get pretty clear notice what party
is better and more public oriented and after all more democratic. And
that is not small thing. In this way we actually support process of
learning, optimisation and opening of parties. Those parties that
remain closed wont benefit. Those who enable more opening, more
participation, do benefit.
BTW, in scientific work i do about pharmacy and use of internet in
informing patients, medical personality used to stigmatise internet, so
there where no big work from medical institutions in offering info
services for patients. But, demand from patients bypassed conservative
institutions and conservative minds, so now these paranoic autors look
rather funny. All thanks to open (or maybe better to say free) process
that internet enabled.
> But an organization which is only open "to its members," if
> membership is restricted, is not purely "open."
Yes.
ATB,
GAle
illegale
> At 11:33 PM 9/18/2006, Serge wrote:
> >Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the same
> >thing. I'll add that transparency is similar too.
>
> Indeed. "Transparency" is equivalent to "open," in some meanings.
> Each term, however, does approach the matter from a different
> perspective. "Transparent" is about access to information.
Indeed.
> "Open" is
> about freedom of expression, it seems, though it also refers to
> transparency.
I could add, this act is calling for participation. In this imperfect
world and hazed, this is actually the only way for gaining
legitimation of any transparent political process.
What I want to say? We still live in age of myth. So, if you enter
politics as TOP politican, you have to admit your weakest chain
actually. This actually means you are much more vulnerable than those
who are closed. What is more important, if I see your non-perfection i
could think that one I do not know might be at least 10 times better
than you /referencing to myths that are shared in political life/. But,
if I enable TOP communication, by comparison you can get much better
sense of reality and acknowledge somebody on the level of reality, not
myth.
That is the reason I believe T in political life has no chance without
OP. So, the whole new paradigm, or nothing.
> And "Public" implies that there are not relevant access
> restrictions. That is, if access is restricted, it does not restrict
> access to those who have a legitimate need to know and a legitimate
> right to participate.
Yes. Transparent to public, open to public. Clear realtionship that
makes misinterpretations much harder to be done.
> > In my understanding,
> >the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency),
> >openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It is
> >interesting to notice that controlling either information, system
> >infrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methods
> >of hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems.
Great notice Serge.
> So how about
> >creating a dedicated reference document for each of the three founding
> >TOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and not
> >try to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies?
I am not pro openness as long as it is widelly interpreted at many very
regularly contradicting manners. Another thins is that transparency and
participation /that is probably functional essence of openness/ are not
the same thing at all. You can be open, yet you can be highly non
transparent. And vice versa also. I suppose I do not have to give
examples, eventhough, to me, it is most easily noticed in human
charactes and words we like to attach to it.
> I do agree that a simple document explaining what TOP is about is
> necessary, and that simple document should have an introduction,
> perhaps a splash page, which is *extremely* simple. And, hopefully, engaging.
>
> I'll just add one comment: an organization may be TOP, as it seems we
> more or less agree on, but still be effectively closed if necessary
> information is buried in the noise, and if access to the
> decision-making structures, i.e., providing input, is likewise
> suffering from conflicting noise.
This is what I find be as second stage. First stage could be only
things such as public forums of political bodies that are known
/regulations in what would that mean I find be needed: some party can
not be validated as top if it has forum for which nobodies know/,
second stage could be exact process such as DP algorithm used for
delegating public person in some structure. Or you can go for exact
info, exact post that has to be considered by officials.
> Indeed, a mindless TOP, i.e.,
> totally open, no restrictions, is not going to work on a large scale.
> It can work fine on a small scale, and indeed, it *often* works quite
> well. Take that complete openness and increase the scale, the TOP
> principles lose their effect. You can't find the information you need
> because it is buried in thousands of irrelevant posts.
This is about filters and their legitimation, which is hard bottom up
process. Yet, we can say it is trruly democratic process.
> Frankly, I think DP is *necessary* before true large-scale TOP
> organizations will be practical. FA/DP provides all the TOP
> principles (though it does depend somewhat on the details of an
> organization, but, as we have discussed, power structures may be a
> different story. Still, DP can apply there, and a parallel FA/DP
> organization to *whatever* power structure can effectively make the
> *combination* TOP. That is the theory, and that is the BeyondPolitics vision.
I have to notice one problem up there. If you want to matter, you have
to make essential difference and base your political ideology on such.
When you make difference, you can get people involved in that, if they
recognise themselves in such ideology.
If you do not make difference, but call everybody, due to lack of clear
difference, you can not set good ideology on it. You can not get people
involved in that. And you have to offer to them something if you want
to rock.
So, FAs do exist. Formal DPs do not exist and there is no current need
for them, which is sad. More precisely, there are several groups I
attain to and I can be called as passive DP among them. If I want to be
active DP, I have to have people who would be interested in such thing.
And there is no people who are actually interested in it. Regular
behind the curtain, non transparent, non open,. non public networking
is the process that still rules in this very moment in political life.
So I can not offer them this service withouht more clear vision. That
is the reason I got oriented to TOP much more than to networking, which
DP actually is (OK, plus delegation statement that does not mean much
in this very moment), if I undertand it correctly.
ATB,
Gale
illegale
Serge
First of all I agree with Gale that defining a system as TOP although
slightly redundant, leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation that
"open system" would, and remains concise enough to be acceptable.
Secondly, is it right to say that we agree that the aim of this group
is for a TOP system allowing for such things as proxy voting, signal
amplification over noise (filters), etc to be implemented freely and
easily by any TOP organization wanting to?
If yes, why don't we start try and get more developpers involved to
build on leparlement, defining the specifics of the software, and
testing it all the while through using leparlement as a platform for
discussion/decision/vote??
Regards,
Serge
illegale
Though, what can we do precisely about that?
ATB,
Gale
Serge
when you ask what we can do about that, I take "that" to mean "If yes,
why don't we start try and get more developpers involved to build on
leparlement....". The answer I would have is pretty straightforward.
For starters we need an accessible and compelling statement of
intention (TOP definition). We also would need to have a proposal at
hand for what the system should be able of doing (Emmanuel do you have
such a definition document?). Then again it's not like it needs to be
all slick and pretty since these documents are openstanding, it is more
to provide a reasonable amount of information and direction for people
to catch up on the idea and decide if they are interested and want to
participate. Once the starting elements are there, it's all about
publicity. Talk on message boards forum, talk with political bloggers,
email your address book about it, whatever you can think of to spread
the word....
IMO it's not exactly easy to do, but it's really not that hard either,
all it takes is to actually get the ball rolling.
Regards,
Serge
echarp
illegale
> Hey Gale,
>
> when you ask what we can do about that, I take "that" to mean "If yes,
> why don't we start try and get more developpers involved to build on
> leparlement....". The answer I would have is pretty straightforward.
>
> For starters we need an accessible and compelling statement of
> intention (TOP definition).
OK. That is the job we are doing right now.
> We also would need to have a proposal at
> hand for what the system should be able of doing (Emmanuel do you have
> such a definition document?).
Indeed. People will need definition (is that right word?) of future
system in order of making people interested.
> Then again it's not like it needs to be
> all slick and pretty since these documents are openstanding, it is more
> to provide a reasonable amount of information and direction for people
> to catch up on the idea and decide if they are interested and want to
> participate. Once the starting elements are there, it's all about
> publicity.
So, you think we do not get too loud before first two things are
realised in satisfying manner? I do agree with this idea, as long as my
previous attempts of getting people interested withouth any "catch" is
actually far from satisfying experience. I believe we do indeed need to
have some "product" first.
> Talk on message boards forum, talk with political bloggers,
> email your address book about it, whatever you can think of to spread
> the word....
>
> IMO it's not exactly easy to do, but it's really not that hard either,
> all it takes is to actually get the ball rolling.
OK.
ATB,
Gale
>
> Regards,
>
> Serge
echarp
> We also would need to have a proposal at hand for what the system
> should be able of doing (Emmanuel do you have such a definition
> document?). Then again it's not like it needs to be all slick and
> pretty since these documents are openstanding, it is more to provide a
> reasonable amount of information and direction for people to catch up
> on the idea and decide if they are interested and want to participate.
> Once the starting elements are there, it's all about publicity. Talk
> on message boards forum, talk with political bloggers, email your
> address book about it, whatever you can think of to spread the
> word....
I don't have much documents besides our discussions and
"parlement":http://leparlement.org itself. Somehow, there is also
"rubyforge":http://rubyforge.org/projects/parlement.
Basically, here are the already implemented features:
- threaded forum
- RSS feed for latest posts *and* most popular posts
- login (optional password/email)
- each post is also a forum
- each post is also a mailing list
- server replication (in real time by mail)
- spam filtering (basic)
- votes: -1, 0 or +1
- avatars
- personal display filter
- posts can be positioned
In the future:
- long posts shortened for display (tomorrow)
- easy installation
- electoral lists
- PGP signatures
- delegations
- range votes
- irc interaction
- individual votes life span
- web page updated in real time (chat)
- voucher for anonymous pseudonym obtention
There are no roles, ranks, agendas, private settings, or obscured data.
Everything is transparent, but for passwords (which are recorded as
salted hashes and not replicated).
Poll results will be calculated according to a given electoral list.
Which would thus act as a caucus of sorts. Anybody will be able to setup
any number of electoral lists.
Anyone who has already posted to top-politics already has a parlement's
pseudo. It is the same as your mail's name. Me for example, it's
"echarp". Don't hesitate to try it. You can, among other things, set up
your avatar ;)
Come and have a talk on "irc":http://VirtualMeetup.our-constitution.org
(you need to have java on your machine).
echarp - http://leparlement.org/irc
Mark
illegale wrote:
> Lomax wrote:
> > echarp wrote:
[...]
> > The way I'd generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after
> > a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the
> > like, would routinely have the right to make edits. If they abuse the
> > privilege, a moderator could restrict their right. And that
> > restriction would be appealable. The exact process would depend on
> > the size of the org and its nature, but the ultimate authority, if it
> > is to be fully democratic, is with the assembly as a whole, which may
> > routinely delegate that authority.
>G: IMO, this is basic difference between Lomax and Marks aproach is that
> Lomax is letting free process, ebabling autopoietic, selforganasing
> basic unit uf humankind, human has possiblity to learn and grow,
> participate and do a rebalance of political power towards
> decentralisation which is good and possible in this very moment also.
-M: SD2-S is amplifying of these free, autopoietic, self-organizing
processes.
SD2-S doesn't add anything that is contrived or arbitrary.
>G: In the other hand SD2 is routine that might go wrong,...
-M: How?
>G:...as long as nobody tested,...
-M: The only way for it to be accepted is for it to be tested -
therefore it will be tested by the time that it has large scale
applications.
>G:...it can be hijacked and effort of individuals that base their work on SD2 can be banalised pretty heavily. So, my opinion is that we can not go this way in this very moment, at least we can not put bet on precisely SD2 as long as by letting basic principles of such free system combined with open source get alive, we can not go wrong. So, SD2 for testing and some not so important issues, yes. Basing the process, no.
-M: If your idea of a 'free system' is a mere communication network
like Lomax's FAs, then you have bodies with no decision making
capability. You have nothing.
>G: BTW, there is an example for SD2 I could use right now. In open system
> such as forum is in TOP communication with some TOP organisation,
> concept of public could be measured on such way, in other words such
> TOP organisation could put SD2 reprensetative to be included in exact
> decision making process. In that way we can optimise such process and
> develop others.
-M: OK. :-)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
illegale
Finnaly I have a little bit more time to get into Definition of TOP
more deeply.
In this very moment I pasted extracts from Markus to xwiki;
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Transparnet_Open_Public_Principles
I am not sure that it will be good and usefull thing, yet I am sure we
will find fine way of solving problem that is in front of us.
ATB,
Gale
illegale
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 04:11:36AM -0700, Markus Schatten wrote:
> > Emmanuel this part "to it's public" just calls for missinterpretation!
>
> As of now, it's a proposition that ask clarifications. Just like TOP
> itself.
>
> It's rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much, but being open
> to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to people who might just
> want to break everything.
>
> What is the qualification for modifications?
What I can notice is that TOP in this very moment (in my perspective)
is only directed to info processing. Not to legitimation body.
> Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it
> functions can be modified by anybody else?
If we do agree that TOP is about info processing, then we do not have
such problem. Yes, someone in China can use all data we do have, he can
use it in order of how he wants to, yet we do not haveto be affraid
that tommorow he will build big statue in Paris as long as he does not
have legitimation for doing this.
TOP organisation is different to NON TOP organisation only in the
matter of generating power. It generates power on informed, free and
participative citizen. TOP organisation has acknowledged such base. NON
TOP organisation is not linked to citizen directly, NON TOP
organisation looks at citizen only as consumer of its service. That is
a key difference.
> I'm merely building on serge's proposal of "open". Proposal I really
> like, but which would ask to qualify participants.
>
> An example: wiki are very often consultable and modifiable by everyone,
> and I guess a generic FA with not many assets could be just the same,
> but what of other human associations which might control important
> elements. Do you give the power to anybody to control it? Why?
So, difference about power control is that TOP org does not base its
power on the info control. Other principles might be same.
> How do you qualify the "open" part of TOP?
>
> echarp - http://leparlement.org
ATB;
Gale
illegale
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 09:46:54AM -0700, Markus Schatten wrote:
> > 1. Introduction
+1
> > 2. Philosophical aspect
> > 3. Social aspect
> > 4. Political aspect
Hmh. I am a little bit confused about making distinction among these
fields.
> > 5. Organizational aspect
Same thing. Can you elaborate what you find this part be. I suppose
this part is your expretise anyway :-)
> > 6. Informational aspect
> > 7. Psychological aspect
> > 8. Conclusion
> > 9. References
>
> That's rather large, does it require all that?
>
> What about:
> 1. Introduction
> 2. Philosophy
> 3. Definitions
> 4. Politics
> 5. Organisation
> 6. Conclusion
Hmh. That might be it. What do others think about proposal?
>
> > And then to define transparency, openess and publicity in every aspect
> > and give a guide what to do (from every aspect) to be TOP. In this way
> > we wouldn't explain TOP by adding apples and oranges but have a nice
> > formal framework.
>
> Cool by me.
>
> But we need to advance with the definition.
>
> *TOP* => Transparent and Open to its Public, or Transparent and Open to
> its Participants.
-1 . I am looking from political aspect. Every power structure has its
base. Todays oligarchical structures are based on usurpation of
democratical bodies, on the media, on the secret services or coercive
power. TOP organisation bases its power on the informed public
directly. And that is a matter of big nubmers, the same numbers that
enabled OpenSource become effective principle of creating software. By
removing public as whole, you are removing power base that makes the
whole project be dissmised.
So, let me drow a line about software. Open and public to its
participants. What does it mean at all? Do you have to start
participating first and after that you can see such software? No,
OpenSource is transparent and open to anybody. Of course, we might talk
about licences, and cloding within its openness, yet that is what I
find be important outcome of the fine definition of TOP.
> Data flow could then be a coin with two sides:
> - transparency: data goes from the system to its participants
> - openness: data goes from participants to the system
>
> Participants (or public) can:
> - see everything
> - act on everything
That is fine with me.
echarp
> > to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to people who might just
> > want to break everything.
> >
> > What is the qualification for modifications?
>
> What I can notice is that TOP in this very moment (in my perspective)
> is only directed to info processing. Not to legitimation body.
Then of course, openness does not need qualification.
But this openness doesn't seem very important does it: it can just be
discarded by the legitimate deciders.
"Speak all you want", and no insurance it will matter at all.
> > Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it
> > functions can be modified by anybody else?
>
> If we do agree that TOP is about info processing, then we do not have
> such problem. Yes, someone in China can use all data we do have, he can
> use it in order of how he wants to, yet we do not haveto be affraid
> that tommorow he will build big statue in Paris as long as he does not
> have legitimation for doing this.
>
> TOP organisation is different to NON TOP organisation only in the
> matter of generating power. It generates power on informed, free and
> participative citizen. TOP organisation has acknowledged such base. NON
> TOP organisation is not linked to citizen directly, NON TOP
> organisation looks at citizen only as consumer of its service. That is
> a key difference.
Transparency is about consumption. Participation, one that will
legitimately be counted for decisions, is one that make citizens
producers.
An openness that includes the right to democratically participate in
decisions would be much stronger than a mere forum. This strength is
problematic, yet what if "public" was defined to organise it?
echarp - http://leparlement.org/fr
echarp
> > its Participants.
>
> -1 . I am looking from political aspect. Every power structure has its
> base. Todays oligarchical structures are based on usurpation of
> democratical bodies, on the media, on the secret services or coercive
> power. TOP organisation bases its power on the informed public
> directly. And that is a matter of big nubmers, the same numbers that
> enabled OpenSource become effective principle of creating software. By
> removing public as whole, you are removing power base that makes the
> whole project be dissmised.
>
> So, let me drow a line about software. Open and public to its
> participants. What does it mean at all? Do you have to start
> participating first and after that you can see such software? No,
> OpenSource is transparent and open to anybody. Of course, we might talk
> about licences, and cloding within its openness, yet that is what I
> find be important outcome of the fine definition of TOP.
Sorry but, Free Software only brings obligations as far as distribution
is concerned. If you distribute a Free Software to someone, then you
have obligations to that person and no one else.
It's an often overlooked particularity.
"Public" does need to be defined, the best definition would imply
everybody impacted by a TOP organisation. Of course this is difficult,
maybe even impossible... What do you think?
echarp - http://leparlement.org/fr
illegale
> > > It's rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much, but being open
> > > to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to people who might just
> > > want to break everything.
> > >
> > > What is the qualification for modifications?
> >
> > What I can notice is that TOP in this very moment (in my perspective)
> > is only directed to info processing. Not to legitimation body.
>
> Then of course, openness does not need qualification.
Actually it does. Open means invited to participate. I give you info
(transparent) I want you to be part of my organisation. Of course, I do
not know you and I do not have any procedure that would enable self
regulation. So, I believe you will excuse me that I do not involve you
directly into decision making process as long as we need to establish
common trust before that moment.
> But this openness doesn't seem very important does it: it can just be
> discarded by the legitimate deciders.
In that case, such organisation is not TOP aynmore.
> "Speak all you want", and no insurance it will matter at all.
You have the right to start your own initiative. You have all the info
you need, you have all the people you need to move on and leave non
competent alone behind you. Of course, it might be that I do not listen
to you because you make no sense. In that way, I will be the one who
will leave you behind.
> > > Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it
> > > functions can be modified by anybody else?
> >
> > If we do agree that TOP is about info processing, then we do not have
> > such problem. Yes, someone in China can use all data we do have, he can
> > use it in order of how he wants to, yet we do not haveto be affraid
> > that tommorow he will build big statue in Paris as long as he does not
> > have legitimation for doing this.
> >
> > TOP organisation is different to NON TOP organisation only in the
> > matter of generating power. It generates power on informed, free and
> > participative citizen. TOP organisation has acknowledged such base. NON
> > TOP organisation is not linked to citizen directly, NON TOP
> > organisation looks at citizen only as consumer of its service. That is
> > a key difference.
>
> Transparency is about consumption. Participation, one that will
> legitimately be counted for decisions, is one that make citizens
> producers.
>
> An openness that includes the right to democratically participate in
> decisions would be much stronger than a mere forum. This strength is
> problematic, yet what if "public" was defined to organise it?
Indeed. Though, I support step by step processing. First thing that
makes wast difference is idea of informed political base that is
engaged into organisational work by deliberation. That is actually
something i find be revolutionary as long as only trully democratical
people can accept such organisational principle and in the same time
this openness and trust in common sense gives democratically oriented
people power of OpenSource paradigm. What I find here to be interesting
is that OpenSource is politics is actually much more powerfull than in
software development. I might be wrong, of course. Yet this is my
strong belief.
ATB,
Gale
> echarp - http://leparlement.org/fr
illegale
echarp je napisao/la:
> > > *TOP* => Transparent and Open to its Public, or Transparent and Open to
> > > its Participants.
> Sorry but, Free Software only brings obligations as far as distribution
> is concerned. If you distribute a Free Software to someone, then you
> have obligations to that person and no one else.
>
> It's an often overlooked particularity.
>
> "Public" does need to be defined, the best definition would imply
> everybody impacted by a TOP organisation. Of course this is difficult,
> maybe even impossible... What do you think?
I do agree. Yet, my understanding of politics based on "no man is an
island" makes politics be affecting to all of us. More or less, but it
does. Just look at budget. If you give to some place, you wont be in
position togive the same money to another place. So, what is the
barrier that can be set on qualitative basics to distinct who is
targeted and who is not targeted? I actually do believe that is not
even important. Especially if you think about finding way of aproaching
to the info on legitimated level. Pretty hard thing to do and in my
opinion not necessary at all.
ATB,
Gale
>
> echarp - http://leparlement.org/fr
echarp
> > everybody impacted by a TOP organisation. Of course this is difficult,
> > maybe even impossible... What do you think?
>
> I do agree. Yet, my understanding of politics based on "no man is an
> island" makes politics be affecting to all of us.
I think this can be debated. This would be the core of the "public"
definition.
> I actually do believe that is not even important. Especially if you
> think about finding way of aproaching to the info on legitimated
> level. Pretty hard thing to do and in my opinion not necessary at all.
Hard, yet this would give *real power* to "openness".
echarp - "parlement":http://leparlement.org
echarp
speak is not that new nowadays.
Of course here, it is the right to speak in a _particular_ forum, and in
fact there is also the duty to setup that very forum in the first place.
Still.
Still deciders can dismiss everything that is being said. This
"openness" is toothless. I quite appreciate Serge's proposition for
openness, but I just want to limit it to a public that also needs a
definition.
> > Then of course, openness does not need qualification.
>
> Actually it does. Open means invited to participate. I give you info
> (transparent) I want you to be part of my organisation. Of course, I do
> not know you and I do not have any procedure that would enable self
> regulation. So, I believe you will excuse me that I do not involve you
> directly into decision making process as long as we need to establish
> common trust before that moment.
Cool.
> > But this openness doesn't seem very important does it: it can just be
> > discarded by the legitimate deciders.
>
> In that case, such organisation is not TOP aynmore.
Yet, from what I understand, deciders _can_ dismiss the data that was
participated, because the "TOP" concepts do not require anything on his
parts.
> > "Speak all you want", and no insurance it will matter at all.
>
> You have the right to start your own initiative. You have all the info
> you need, you have all the people you need to move on and leave non
> competent alone behind you. Of course, it might be that I do not listen
> to you because you make no sense. In that way, I will be the one who
> will leave you behind.
Thanks to "Transparency" ;)
> > An openness that includes the right to democratically participate in
> > decisions would be much stronger than a mere forum. This strength is
> > problematic, yet what if "public" was defined to organise it?
>
> Indeed. Though, I support step by step processing. First thing that
> makes wast difference is idea of informed political base that is
> engaged into organisational work by deliberation. That is actually
> something i find be revolutionary as long as only trully democratical
> people can accept such organisational principle and in the same time
> this openness and trust in common sense gives democratically oriented
> people power of OpenSource paradigm. What I find here to be interesting
> is that OpenSource is politics is actually much more powerfull than in
> software development. I might be wrong, of course. Yet this is my
> strong belief.
Yet open source also defines legitimacy: it does not give rights to
everybody on this planet.
But OK, as of now I can settle with the concept of "Transparency" which
I appreciate and find very important. Openness and Public, from what I
understand of your opinions, are also parts of parlement (because it is
strictly a forum).
But maybe we can leave some openings for some future strong definitions
of "Open" and "Public"?
- Transparency => to obtain data
- Openness => to push data
- Public => legitimacy
(again, just my ideas, I won't push them anymore because they don't seem
to have any support).
illegale
> I'm very sorry if I sound cynical, but giving to someone the right to
> speak is not that new nowadays.
Of course. Though, here we might touch moment of political relevance
that is not obtained by current system. In short, what does it mean
that you can yell, if nobody will listen to you? Not much. In this very
moment mass media and its ownership structure has actual monopoly over
public opinion. Without letting creation of public opinion be free
process, what we actually get is public hoax. This would not mean too
much if the public opinion was not the top virtuality in democracy.
> Of course here, it is the right to speak in a _particular_ forum, and in
> fact there is also the duty to setup that very forum in the first place.
> Still.
This is very important. The fact that you are becoming politically
relevant by your comment. That people will start to wonder why your
president did not accept your very good proposal recognised by many. By
this action, your president losses a particle of his legimacy. That
particle is the one you are actually taking. What we can notice there
is rebalance of public credibility that is root of legimacy.
If you did not have such place, your president could take public hoaxed
opinion fabricated by media owners and act in that virtual context
(dissmising your thought as they are not politically relevant as long
as nobody hears them) making actually great nonsense in real political
context. With opennes that scenario is not possible. Nobody can kiddnap
nor fabricate any reality that makes people be one great step forward
towards ideal of equality.
Nevertheless, what I already mentioned is that T can not go withouth OP
as long as medias fabricated picture of reality is highly hypocritical,
too hot for transparent work and what is maybe even more important, you
can not set your political organisation into reality context without
freeing info flow.
One more thing I forgot to mention. If you are good by openning
yourself towards public, all you can get is more good ideas and more
credits for your work which means, you can only prosper. If you are not
good, you can learn to be better. Only those who are not ready to
learn, adopt and go on wont profit through such structure, as long as
more efficient people will make their work be irrelevant. I find this
thing good as facing reality is good thing for anyone who wants to make
the World better place. If he does not wont such thing, but plays with
words only, OK. But other people wont support him with only product
that public potential become distracted by phonies.
> Still deciders can dismiss everything that is being said. This
> "openness" is toothless.
Far from that. Of course, you have to consider the fact that politics
is informational brench. In politics actually, everything is about
information. By setting new principle of info flow, you change the
whole process absolutely.
> I quite appreciate Serge's proposition for
> openness, but I just want to limit it to a public that also needs a
> definition.
OK.
>
> > > Then of course, openness does not need qualification.
> >
> > Actually it does. Open means invited to participate. I give you info
> > (transparent) I want you to be part of my organisation. Of course, I do
> > not know you and I do not have any procedure that would enable self
> > regulation. So, I believe you will excuse me that I do not involve you
> > directly into decision making process as long as we need to establish
> > common trust before that moment.
>
> Cool.
>
> > > But this openness doesn't seem very important does it: it can just be
> > > discarded by the legitimate deciders.
> >
> > In that case, such organisation is not TOP aynmore.
>
> Yet, from what I understand, deciders _can_ dismiss the data that was
> participated, because the "TOP" concepts do not require anything on his
> parts.
Data stays. And deciders if they made wrong decision have ethernal
shame that removes their credibility. If they made good decision, this
will allways be their marker for good. So, as long as we are
considering FAs in this moment, every wrong move gives competitors
space to gain more public support, making such structure becoming more
relevant, more powerfull. All of this is product of TOP actually.
> > > "Speak all you want", and no insurance it will matter at all.
> >
> > You have the right to start your own initiative. You have all the info
> > you need, you have all the people you need to move on and leave non
> > competent alone behind you. Of course, it might be that I do not listen
> > to you because you make no sense. In that way, I will be the one who
> > will leave you behind.
>
> Thanks to "Transparency" ;)
Not just to transparency. By being part of TOP you can gain
credibility, you can set new contacts, new power base. You can promote
yourself through your comptetitor. Thanks to O in TOP.
> > > An openness that includes the right to democratically participate in
> > > decisions would be much stronger than a mere forum. This strength is
> > > problematic, yet what if "public" was defined to organise it?
> >
> > Indeed. Though, I support step by step processing. First thing that
> > makes wast difference is idea of informed political base that is
> > engaged into organisational work by deliberation. That is actually
> > something i find be revolutionary as long as only trully democratical
> > people can accept such organisational principle and in the same time
> > this openness and trust in common sense gives democratically oriented
> > people power of OpenSource paradigm. What I find here to be interesting
> > is that OpenSource is politics is actually much more powerfull than in
> > software development. I might be wrong, of course. Yet this is my
> > strong belief.
>
> Yet open source also defines legitimacy: it does not give rights to
> everybody on this planet.
Legitimacy is consequence of power relations. TOP is only paradigm of
political action, the way of how to gain the power.
> But OK, as of now I can settle with the concept of "Transparency" which
> I appreciate and find very important. Openness and Public, from what I
> understand of your opinions, are also parts of parlement (because it is
> strictly a forum).
I believe so.
> But maybe we can leave some openings for some future strong definitions
> of "Open" and "Public"?
>
> - Transparency => to obtain data
> - Openness => to push data
> - Public => legitimacy
Hmh. I should think about that, yet I like it pretty much.
ATB;
Gale
Markus Schatten
OK, I see openness in the sense of OpenSource is missunderstood here. Take the
following example:
Someone programmes an OpenSource application. Any one can download it, change
the source, send the suggestions to the author etc. What happens if someone
"destructive" takes the code and puts some intentional bugs into it? Or even
worse destroys the code and makes it non functional?
In both cases probably nothing will happend because the author controls what
comes into his application and what not. If he has the adequate knowledge
he'll see the errors put inside.
But what happens if the author doesn't want to add some good improvements send
by participants to his application? Will this slow down development?
Probably not, because others will fork his application and create a new one
with the proposed improvements, and eventually if they are better their
application will be more used and better than the former.
Now take this in a political context and see what happens. Say Mirko starts a
political project based on TOP. If someone wants to change the rules and do
harm to the project Mirko won't allow such behavior, e.g. he will filter the
"harmfull actions" out of his project. But if Mirko is the "bad guy" and
doesn't allow for changes which will probably improve his project the others
can fork his project and filter him out. Autopoiesis will do the rest, e.g.
people (public) behavior will decide which project is the better which will
eventually result with the commonly accepted best solution for this
particular project, while the other solutions which may evolve eventually
die.
So, I think OPEN in TOP should stand for fully OPEN to ALL public but with
adequate mechanisms (e.g. filtering) which will allow such openness without
harm. This also subsumes that all information ever made TOP must remain TOP -
e.g. no information ever published as TOP should be ever deleted so eventual
filtering and forks remain possible.
Best regards
--
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus....@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
echarp
The right to speak? Don't we have that already? The right to secede?
Isn't a fork a secession?
(Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
are not democratic things!!!)
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Markus Schatten
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 05:33, Serge wrote:
> Dear Markus and members of the group,
>
> Most points seem valid, but I hope you won't take offense if I point
> out it's not a very engaging read.
No offense at all ;-) It wasn't very engaging to write also, but it has to be
done.
> I do believe that the medium is
> (half) the message, and that for TOP to have any kind of traction with
> the public, its message must be absolutely as concise and clear as
> possible.
I agree!
+1
>
> As you point out, and rightly so, my definition of TOP has elements
> missing. Surely some elements would need to be added, and others
> removed . However, expanding the level of detail beyond what consitutes
> the core of TOP for this introductory statement would be a mistake for
> two main reasons:
> - While exceptions and numerous other things do need to be addressed,
> bundling everything in the same document will only make it unpalatable
> to anyone new to the discussion.
> - While we can all agree on the fundamental meaning and goals of TOP
> politics, we need to be cautious about trying to include details from
> the start, as these details will probably be the points on which we
> disagree rather than the essentials - and uselessly delay agreement on
> these essential points.
I agree, this was an error of me to define everything in detail in only one
document. But still, details have to be defined in special documents which
should be referenced in the main one (so it should be understand that they
are an integral part of it). Maybe we should take a law-writing approach e.g.
use statements like "this issue is defined in a special document", or "if in
doubt consult special elaboration" etc.
>
> Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the same
> thing. I'll add that transparency is similar too. In my understanding,
> the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency),
> openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It is
> interesting to notice that controlling either information, system
> infrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methods
> of hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems. So how about
> creating a dedicated reference document for each of the three founding
> TOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and not
> try to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies?
>
This was allready been discused so I won't engage a new discussion here, but
let me just tell that I like the pretty definition of TOP you stated ;-)
Markus Schatten
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 15:07, echarp wrote:
> What is the meaning of "O" then?
Open ;-)
>
> The right to speak? Don't we have that already? The right to secede?
> Isn't a fork a secession?
The right to participate in any TOP political project, use the results,
eventually change them under the condition that the new results are TOP
again.
>
> (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
> are not democratic things!!!)
Why do you thing so sadly?
echarp
> > What is the meaning of "O" then?
>
> Open ;-)
:D
> > The right to speak? Don't we have that already? The right to secede?
> > Isn't a fork a secession?
>
> The right to participate in any TOP political project, use the results,
> eventually change them under the condition that the new results are TOP
> again.
Participate? What is this participation? A speech? You want the right to
speak don't you? ;)
What are the results? Decisions? Are they copyrighted or protected from
reuse in any manner? (if they are, yes, the right to reuse could be
somehow important)
> > (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
> > are not democratic things!!!)
>
> Why do you thing so sadly?
I don't think that I do. I try to be realist, and democracy is merely a
tool and a point of view, it is not synonymous with everything good in
this world!
A democratic decision can have very bad consequences. A democratic
country could behave very badly. Democracy is no panacea. It's just one
of the least infringing ethically.
Markus Schatten
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 17:47, echarp wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 04:22:51PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
> > > What is the meaning of "O" then?
> >
> > Open ;-)
> >
> :D
> :
> > > The right to speak? Don't we have that already? The right to secede?
> > > Isn't a fork a secession?
> >
> > The right to participate in any TOP political project, use the results,
> > eventually change them under the condition that the new results are TOP
> > again.
>
> Participate? What is this participation? A speech? You want the right to
> speak don't you? ;)
Speech, writing articles, documentation, project management, writing software,
laws, procedures, statements etc. etc. etc.
>
> What are the results? Decisions? Are they copyrighted or protected from
> reuse in any manner? (if they are, yes, the right to reuse could be
> somehow important)
Project documentation, laws, organizational procedures, software etc. etc.
etc. etc. They are protected under a GPL-like licence (e.g. TOP licence)
which assures that the result of such reuse is TOP again ("closing inside
openness").
>
> > > (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
> > > are not democratic things!!!)
> >
> > Why do you thing so sadly?
>
> I don't think that I do. I try to be realist, and democracy is merely a
> tool and a point of view, it is not synonymous with everything good in
> this world!
I agree, but why do you think that OpenSource is not democratic?
>
> A democratic decision can have very bad consequences. A democratic
> country could behave very badly. Democracy is no panacea. It's just one
> of the least infringing ethically.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.
echarp
> > What are the results? Decisions? Are they copyrighted or protected from
> > reuse in any manner? (if they are, yes, the right to reuse could be
> > somehow important)
>
> Project documentation, laws, organizational procedures, software etc. etc.
> etc. etc. They are protected under a GPL-like licence (e.g. TOP licence)
> which assures that the result of such reuse is TOP again ("closing inside
> openness").
OK then, it's not just the right to speak, you want freedom of
expression!
And yes, copyrights can be a limitation to such a freedom, the copyleft
concept is really great to fight against it! What about simply using it
then?
> > > > (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
> > > > are not democratic things!!!)
> > >
> > > Why do you thing so sadly?
> >
> > I don't think that I do. I try to be realist, and democracy is merely a
> > tool and a point of view, it is not synonymous with everything good in
> > this world!
>
> I agree, but why do you think that OpenSource is not democratic?
Where do you see any relationship between the two??? I don't!
Any reference to democracy in the GPL or the OSI?
Free Software is in parts a reaction to lengthy copyrights and the
property-risation of code which previously was contributed by a
community of sharing users.
> > A democratic decision can have very bad consequences. A democratic
> > country could behave very badly. Democracy is no panacea. It's just one
> > of the least infringing ethically.
>
> This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.
I'm sure you agree with me expressing my opinions ;)
Your question could lead to an interpretation which associates democracy
to everything that is good.
"Are wiki democratic? Of course! Is ecology? Yes necessarily! What about
fashion? Great! And astronomy? Hey, raise your eyes it's everybody's,
thus it must be democratic!!!"
The internet is not democratic! :)
Democracy is a concept generally used when there are matters of
decision making, and most of the time of votes and equality.
Free Softwares are not democratic. Linus Thorvald himself agrees to
being a benevolent dictator. Herding cats but none the less the ultimate
decider!
echarp - proud wearer of a great angina, yeah... :(
Serge
I am copying your implemented features and planned additions on the
wiki so we may try to find a synthetic vision of the features a system
would need. Chiefly I'd like to add that this needs to be as easy as
possible to install and implement so as to raise the chance of
organizations adopting it.
best regards,
Serge
Markus Schatten
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 18:41, echarp wrote:
> > > What are the results? Decisions? Are they copyrighted or protected from
> > > reuse in any manner? (if they are, yes, the right to reuse could be
> > > somehow important)
> >
> > Project documentation, laws, organizational procedures, software etc.
> > etc. etc. etc. They are protected under a GPL-like licence (e.g. TOP
> > licence) which assures that the result of such reuse is TOP again
> > ("closing inside openness").
>
> OK then, it's not just the right to speak, you want freedom of
> expression!
>
> And yes, copyrights can be a limitation to such a freedom, the copyleft
> concept is really great to fight against it! What about simply using it
> then?
Because it's not 100% compatible to political projects.
>
> > > > > (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but
> > > > > these are not democratic things!!!)
> > > >
> > > > Why do you thing so sadly?
> > >
> > > I don't think that I do. I try to be realist, and democracy is merely a
> > > tool and a point of view, it is not synonymous with everything good in
> > > this world!
> >
> > I agree, but why do you think that OpenSource is not democratic?
>
> Where do you see any relationship between the two??? I don't!
I do.
>
> Any reference to democracy in the GPL or the OSI?
No, I didn't say OpenSource is democracy but OpenSource is democratic.
>
> Free Software is in parts a reaction to lengthy copyrights and the
> property-risation of code which previously was contributed by a
> community of sharing users.
OK
>
> > > A democratic decision can have very bad consequences. A democratic
> > > country could behave very badly. Democracy is no panacea. It's just one
> > > of the least infringing ethically.
> >
> > This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.
>
> I'm sure you agree with me expressing my opinions ;)
>
Of course.
> Your question could lead to an interpretation which associates democracy
> to everything that is good.
Well sorry if you got me wrong.
>
> "Are wiki democratic? Of course! Is ecology? Yes necessarily! What about
> fashion? Great! And astronomy? Hey, raise your eyes it's everybody's,
> thus it must be democratic!!!"
>
> The internet is not democratic! :)
>
> Democracy is a concept generally used when there are matters of
> decision making, and most of the time of votes and equality.
>
> Free Softwares are not democratic. Linus Thorvald himself agrees to
> being a benevolent dictator. Herding cats but none the less the ultimate
> decider!
We have a nice saying in Croatia, "Pametniji popušta" :-D
>
> echarp - proud wearer of a great angina, yeah... :(
Sorry to hear that, hopes you'll get better soon ;-)
echarp
> > concept is really great to fight against it! What about simply using it
> > then?
>
> Because it's not 100% compatible to political projects.
Isn't "copyleft":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft just a concept?
What else but copyrights would you want to protect against?
> > > I agree, but why do you think that OpenSource is not democratic?
> >
> > Where do you see any relationship between the two??? I don't!
>
> I do.
Please elaborate. Me I'm mostly relying on this kind of definition of
"democracy":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
> We have a nice saying in Croatia, "Pametniji popušta" :-D
???
> > echarp - proud wearer of a great angina, yeah... :(
>
> Sorry to hear that, hopes you'll get better soon ;-)
Already feeling better. And sucking sweeties all day long :(
echarp - http://leparlement.org
echarp
> I am copying your implemented features and planned additions on the
> wiki so we may try to find a synthetic vision of the features a system
> would need.
Cool, definitely very cool!
> Chiefly I'd like to add that this needs to be as easy as possible to
> install and implement so as to raise the chance of organizations
> adopting it.
There are currently two dependencies: ruby on rails and PostgreSQL. The
only one bothering me is the DB. Anybody knows of a good ruby DB to
remove that dependency? (this would do the same trick as derby in a J2EE
project)
> best regards,
Thanks, take care
echarp
illegale
echarp wrote:
> What is the meaning of "O" then?
>
> The right to speak?
I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and
if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering.
First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public
political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of
functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of
the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary
members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the
idea if I posted to some other forum.
When I post there, they know that everybody knows what I said. So, you
can not play dull in such situatio, when some compromising data is into
process. This leads to demand of political base that leaders set their
opinion and consequent actions towards things I am mentioning, of
course if I am writing interesting things hard to be ignored.
So, they have freed informational channal of FMSDP. They can not
manipulate with informations any more, or at least they have not
monopoly for it any more. This is a great difference that shows idea of
political relevant nformations vs politicaly non relevant info.
politically relevant info are only info that matter and by setting TOP
you enable there relevant info do their greatest job you can imagine.
Actually, it is revolution I am talking about. Thanks to openness and
transparency of info processing.
> Don't we have that already? The right to secede?
> Isn't a fork a secession?
>
> (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
> are not democratic things!!!)
Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is
base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in
common between OS and democracy.
illegale
> But what happens if the author doesn't want to add some good improvements send
> by participants to his application? Will this slow down development?
>
> Probably not, because others will fork his application and create a new one
> with the proposed improvements, and eventually if they are better their
> application will be more used and better than the former.
>
> Now take this in a political context and see what happens. Say Mirko starts a
> political project based on TOP. If someone wants to change the rules and do
> harm to the project Mirko won't allow such behavior, e.g. he will filter the
> "harmfull actions" out of his project. But if Mirko is the "bad guy" and
> doesn't allow for changes which will probably improve his project the others
> can fork his project and filter him out. Autopoiesis will do the rest, e.g.
> people (public) behavior will decide which project is the better which will
> eventually result with the commonly accepted best solution for this
> particular project, while the other solutions which may evolve eventually
> die.
I have to add one more thing. By setting TOP we are enabling optimum
info processing where interested persons can directly compete/cooperate
on the places where their voice/action will matter the most. This
offers even possibility that if Mirko is "bad guy" to be leached by
"good guys", which is actually paradigmatic shift to current situation
in politics.
> So, I think OPEN in TOP should stand for fully OPEN to ALL public but with
> adequate mechanisms (e.g. filtering) which will allow such openness without
> harm. This also subsumes that all information ever made TOP must remain TOP -
> e.g. no information ever published as TOP should be ever deleted so eventual
> filtering and forks remain possible.
Indeed. I think we should add this if it is not done already.
ATB,
Gale
illegale
illegale
This reminds me about compilating our recent intentions in order of
getting back to them when the time comes.
ATB,
Gale
echarp
> echarp wrote:
> > What is the meaning of "O" then?
> >
> > The right to speak?
>
> I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and
> if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering.
> First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
NO!!!
It can perfectly well be ignored!
In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you
have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just
another voice and another person in the crowd.
> For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public
> political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of
> functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of
> the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary
> members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the
> idea if I posted to some other forum.
There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It's a
matter of politics.
The presence of a forum does not ensure *anything* but your right to
speak!
If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in
an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No
"huge difference" :(
> > (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
> > are not democratic things!!!)
>
> Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is
> base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in
> common between OS and democracy.
The fact there are things in common _does not_ imply that one is
another.
Free Software is *not* democratic.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Gordan Ponjavic
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:58:33PM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > echarp wrote:
> > > What is the meaning of "O" then?
> > >
> > > The right to speak?
> >
> > I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and
> > if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering.
> > First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
>
> NO!!!
>
> It can perfectly well be ignored!
My experience tells me otherwise. Concretely. In any party you have
fine and less fine people. Good and less good people. Smart and less
smart people. Corrupted and not corrupted people. If some party was
based only on bad and corrupted people, it would never had chance to be
legitimated in political market however it is bad. So, bad guys need
good ones for their own democratic legitimation. They need excuse that
will haze bad aspects of their party.
For that they use media coverup and lack of info flow in general, where
they can keep bad guys in ignorance, legitimating their bad actions.
So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any
aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me
I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my
Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good
article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that
article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is
moving their position based on non-truths. And indeed. This process is
not one hour job where everything changes. It has much deeper grounds,
it is much more fundamental process to be ignored in any way. Though,
this what I am talking is only from my personal experience. If we talk
about studies, they show that people from forums do not respcet RL
authorities much as regular people. In the same time these people are
much more interested in hearing arguments.
This is what we could call changing psychological attributes of the
people from forums, excatly due to reason where maybe non-TOP
authorities wont hear you, but his power base will be eliminated if he
keeps be ignorant. In this very time, these non-TOP authorites do
change their thouths as long as socialisation process I am mentioning
lasts for more than 10 years, having not so small influence into whole
structure of society.
> In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you
> have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just
> another voice and another person in the crowd.
Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that,
as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for
their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their
party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created
first big step towards true democracy where the first is not
nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now
everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he
wants to prosper.
> > For an example, youth of socialist party (FMSDP) have its own public
> > political forum. And that forum is relevant to FMSDP as long as most of
> > functioners (meybe even all of them) post there and as long as most of
> > the fractions are reprensented and there are of course ordinary
> > members. So, when I post at that place. It is HUGE DIFFERENCE to the
> > idea if I posted to some other forum.
>
> There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It's a
> matter of politics.
What do you mean by some participants? What I can notice, if you create
politically relevant place (meaning people who have obvious power
supremacy in such structures obviously read these forums making them
politically relevant places), than any word if it makes sense can not
be ignored any more. Not one. If it is ignored, here we get birth of
alternative power structutes that will create new non-corrupted
supremacy over existing power structures.
> The presence of a forum does not ensure *anything* but your right to
> speak!
Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great
difference that does not exist right now.
> If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in
> an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No
> "huge difference" :(
This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where
the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives
whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is
a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third
factor in decision making process.
> > > (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
> > > are not democratic things!!!)
> >
> > Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is
> > base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in
> > common between OS and democracy.
>
> The fact there are things in common _does not_ imply that one is
> another.
Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
ATB,
Gale
Gordan Ponjavic
Today, you need to organise demonstrations to be heard by targeted
people. And that will happend if demonstrations are successful. By TOP,
all you have to do is to go on-line and to do a little bit
investigation in order of getting right context for your agiation.
In other words. If you can speak, and nobody can hear you, than your
freedom for speak does not worth too much. More precisely it does not
worth anything. But by setting this communication channel, by enabling
your thoughts be heard by those who do matter, your right to speak gets
its point.
This actually means rather big impact in the whole political process.
Maybe even higher than a globally acknowledged right for free speach.
You give this right potency and political relevance. Key points to
start matter.
ATB,
Gale
echarp
> > > if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering.
> > > First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
> >
> > NO!!!
> >
> > It can perfectly well be ignored!
>
> My experience tells me otherwise.
COME ON!
Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum
the more posts will be discarded by most people.
Signal over noise ratio.
> So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any
> aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me
> I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my
> Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good
> article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that
> article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
:-D
A century ago you would have had your own newspaper.
What you want is freedom of speech. You already have it. You also want
political power, well, you need to attract political attention.
> If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is
> moving their position based on non-truths.
This is politics. You have an idea, you write an open letter and publish
in a newspaper, you hope someone notices it, maybe even you'll have an
answer. The media will pick the story, and ask more questions.
Ain't that what you really want? To be heard?
Well, you can never have any insurance that you will be heard. A human
being might even play like he's listening, yet dismiss everything right
away.
Then you play politics, try to set a fire under his seat and have more
people involved. Politics.
You can not require that someone has an open mind.
> > In a political meeting you have more possibilities to be heard if you
> > have political power and legitimacy. Otherwise you probably are just
> > another voice and another person in the crowd.
>
> Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that,
> as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for
> their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their
> party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created
> first big step towards true democracy where the first is not
> nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now
> everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he
> wants to prosper.
What is it that you have created? Free speech?
Party leaders may or may not be touchable, it's all matters of politics,
nothing else.
> > There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It's a
> > matter of politics.
>
> What do you mean by some participants?
"Some" participants. Some people speaking or otherwise acting.
> > The presence of a forum does not ensure *anything* but your right to
> > speak!
>
> Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great
> difference that does not exist right now.
No.
You can not *oblige* someone to really listen to what you have to say.
This is not technical, it's simply human.
> > If that forum is popular it gets worse: your message will be drowned in
> > an ocean of posts. You speak, but no insurance it will be heard. No
> > "huge difference" :(
>
> This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where
> the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives
> whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is
> a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third
> factor in decision making process.
However the filters can be, a popular forum will "drown" most posts
under their numbers.
The only way to have importance in a political context, is to gain
political power. This is almost a tautology.
The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic
processes...
> > > > (Free Software and Open Source I'm very knowledgeable about, but these
> > > > are not democratic things!!!)
> > >
> > > Depends on how you imagine democracy? If the principle of equality is
> > > base of democracy and I believe it is, than there is a lot of things in
> > > common between OS and democracy.
> >
> > The fact there are things in common _does not_ imply that one is
> > another.
>
> Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
Democracy is a decision making system. Do you think Free Software also
is? :)
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Gordan Ponjavic
echarp wrote:
> > > > I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and
> > > > if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering.
> > > > First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
> > >
> > > NO!!!
> > >
> > > It can perfectly well be ignored!
> >
> > My experience tells me otherwise.
>
> COME ON!
>
> Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum
> the more posts will be discarded by most people.
At IRC I explained the reason why I find that this is not true.
> Signal over noise ratio.
>
> > So, at forum you have meetup of these two kinds of people in any
> > aspect. And my experience (5 years in these watters, actually) tell me
> > I have some not so insignificant influence into regular members (my
> > Croatian is a little bit better than English :)). If I write good
> > article that good guys from a party catch up with interest, that
> > article can not be ignored by rulling, corrupted members neither.
>
> :-D
>
> A century ago you would have had your own newspaper.
Right now I would have nothing against my own newspaper, too.
> What you want is freedom of speech. You already have it. You also want
> political power, well, you need to attract political attention.
I want to optimize my political work. I want to go to the place where
my engagment will matter, the place where the right people will hear
and respond. For an example, I might talk about trust networks at any
other place but this one. But I would barely get any respond. So, I am
lucky this place is open to me, so I can discuss about this very thing
and get response.
So, this means my engagement is optimised. This means less energy I
have to involve to get desired results. This means more interested
people who see work/result ratio is acceptable to them to try doing
themselves. As long as this work/result ratio is being strongly
impacted, I can notice political movement going out of it. Thing that
can hardly be ignored.
> > If they play dull, other members just press them and this whole is
> > moving their position based on non-truths.
>
> This is politics. You have an idea, you write an open letter and publish
> in a newspaper, you hope someone notices it, maybe even you'll have an
> answer. The media will pick the story, and ask more questions.
Forum by TOP is much more relevant place. To be more precise. Forum by
TOP is the place to solve the problem. The place where all interested
sides are participating. The place where every dicision is deliberated
by public itself, which is quiet revolutionary concept to idea of open
letter in a newspaper. At least, I see it that way.
> Ain't that what you really want? To be heard?
No. I want to get response that will satisfy my intention. To be heard
is probably first step in political process.
> Well, you can never have any insurance that you will be heard. A human
> being might even play like he's listening, yet dismiss everything right
> away.
I have no problem with that. I do understand that some people will
never (for example extreme lunatics) be heard as long as there wont be
interested people in what they are saying. Yet, I do believe in human
kind in global. After all it is autopoietic system. I do believe that
best thoughts and best decisions for human kind wont be ignored as long
as it is impossible duo te reasons I mentioned in our IRC chat.
> Then you play politics, try to set a fire under his seat and have more
> people involved. Politics.
That is what I find be crucial. The fact that we are talking about
political reality and use of our work on that reality. We are not
discussing some hypothesis. But politics.
> You can not require that someone has an open mind.
I do not require it. But, if somebody has not open mind, we can say he
is slow. And the one who is slow, if he is not holding oligopoly which
is now the case, naturally wont lead others.
> > Indeed. I am not so popular as party leader. And I am fine with that,
> > as long as thought of their leader is a little bit more relevant for
> > their party future than my thought. So what? The point is that their
> > party leader is not non-touchable any more. This means, we have created
> > first big step towards true democracy where the first is not
> > nontouchable, nor last nonexistent. Now we have the same channel now
> > everybody has to listen (adopt) and everybody has to talk (act) if he
> > wants to prosper.
>
> What is it that you have created? Free speech?
We removed media oligopoly over political context. In fact, this fact
empowers free speech, which is the point of it. The point of free
speech, as i can notice is not the idea that you can talk around, but
the point that you can change the world by free expresion of your
opinion. This optimisation of info flow, and bypass of media oligopoly
over political context gives you strong boost.
> Party leaders may or may not be touchable, it's all matters of politics,
> nothing else.
Party leaders may be non touchable, but what is the point of such party
that has no political base? And what does actually non touchable mean
in that situation?
> > > There are plenty of forum where some participants are not heard. It's a
> > > matter of politics.
> >
> > What do you mean by some participants?
>
> "Some" participants. Some people speaking or otherwise acting.
OK. You have to become recognised in any work you do . The same thing
is with politics. I have no problems with that. What has been problem
was that recognition did not come from people/public, but from those at
top. By realisation of TOP politics, that problem is solved.
> > Not just to speak, but to be heard by those who matter. Great
> > difference that does not exist right now.
>
> No.
>
> You can not *oblige* someone to really listen to what you have to say.
> This is not technical, it's simply human.
He does not need to really listen to what I have to say. But, if he can
not understand it and if he is a leader of sme fraction, than I can see
the problem. Especially if there are more capable ones who could use
their ability to really listen and not just capability, but the point
of what I wanted to say. If there is whole base that is able to listen
and see the point out of it, than leader, if he is not capable will be
replaced by more capable. If none of them will be capable to listen,
than it might be I am wrong, or that organisation is globally not
capable and we can move on, not wasting energy.
> > This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where
> > the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives
> > whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is
> > a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third
> > factor in decision making process.
>
> However the filters can be, a popular forum will "drown" most posts
> under their numbers.
Its not however, because with filters you choose how many posts you
want to see and of course under what criteria..
> The only way to have importance in a political context, is to gain
> political power. This is almost a tautology.
OK. Yet, this power comes directly from the people/public. Not from the
oligarchs, nor media manipulations. That is a good thing. I like it
rather much.
> The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic
> processes.
What do you mean by democratic process? Is SD2 choosing reprensetative
democratic process?
> > > The fact there are things in common _does not_ imply that one is
> > > another.
> >
> > Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
>
> Democracy is a decision making system. Do you think Free Software also
> is? :)
OK. What I wanted to make point was that no other political system but
democracy can accept basic thoughts of free software, which is freedom
of information as base of the whole structure.
echarp
> > > > > if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering.
> > > > > First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
> > > >
> > > > NO!!!
> > > >
> > > > It can perfectly well be ignored!
> > >
> > > My experience tells me otherwise.
> >
> > COME ON!
> >
> > Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum
> > the more posts will be discarded by most people.
>
> At IRC I explained the reason why I find that this is not true.
What is not true? That the more popular a forum gets, the more posts
will be discarded by most people?
Are you arguing that everybody reads everything???
Don't you accept that filters will be used???
> > What you want is freedom of speech. You already have it. You also want
> > political power, well, you need to attract political attention.
>
> I want to optimize my political work. I want to go to the place where
> my engagment will matter, the place where the right people will hear
> and respond. For an example, I might talk about trust networks at any
> other place but this one. But I would barely get any respond. So, I am
> lucky this place is open to me, so I can discuss about this very thing
> and get response.
>
> So, this means my engagement is optimised. This means less energy I
> have to involve to get desired results. This means more interested
> people who see work/result ratio is acceptable to them to try doing
> themselves. As long as this work/result ratio is being strongly
> impacted, I can notice political movement going out of it. Thing that
> can hardly be ignored.
OK. Let me try to rephrase how you work and/or want to work.
You want all political organisations to let you come and speak in front
of their adherents.
This is what you call being "open".
Am I right?
What happens when hundreds if not thousands of people want to come and
speak?
> > > This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where
> > > the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives
> > > whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is
> > > a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third
> > > factor in decision making process.
> >
> > However the filters can be, a popular forum will "drown" most posts
> > under their numbers.
>
> Its not however, because with filters you choose how many posts you
> want to see and of course under what criteria..
Finally you do accept that some posts will be ignored by many people!
Do you acknowledge that a popular forum will "drown" most posts under
their numbers?
Or, yourself, do you read *everything* in all forums you are visiting???
> > The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic
> > processes.
>
> What do you mean by democratic process? Is SD2 choosing reprensetative
> democratic process?
Of course. Although it's unnecessarily byzantine and strongly against
Direct Democracy.
But I just discovered on the chat that you are yourself against DD... :(
> > > Here comes up the question. What is the essence of democracy?
> >
> > Democracy is a decision making system. Do you think Free Software also
> > is? :)
>
> OK. What I wanted to make point was that no other political system but
> democracy can accept basic thoughts of free software, which is freedom
> of information as base of the whole structure.
Any political system *could* accept Free Software.
Or is there somewhere in the universe a law stating that a dictatorial
country *has* to ban it???
Oh, and Free Software is not freedom of expression. It's just one kind
of expression, mostly technical.
Gordan Ponjavic
> > > > > > I believe therie is actually big difference if nobody can hear you and
> > > > > > if you speak in the place where most of interested public is gathering.
> > > > > > First thing is actually meaningless, second thing can not be ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > NO!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > It can perfectly well be ignored!
> > > >
> > > > My experience tells me otherwise.
> > >
> > > COME ON!
> > >
> > > Any number of posts can and will be ignored. The more popular a forum
> > > the more posts will be discarded by most people.
> >
> > At IRC I explained the reason why I find that this is not true.
>
> What is not true? That the more popular a forum gets, the more posts
> will be discarded by most people?
>
> Are you arguing that everybody reads everything???
>
> Don't you accept that filters will be used???
You say any number of posts can and will be ignored. Maybe you did not
mean that every post can be ignored by what you've said. And I do say
that every post can not be ignored. In this very moment, it is a mix of
reputation and ability to obtain recognizible informations that gives
you leverage for acceptance.
If you can do that, than your post cant be ignored (the only solution
for not being heard is censorship). So, if that post is belonging to
sum of "any", than you are plainly wrong. I am saying that as a person
who is more or less active in forums for almost 9 years and rather
active in political forums for 6 years. Being moderator of two most
popular political forums, having even experimental forum at one of
these sites, having a couple of mine forums etc, meaning I completely
stand behind every single word I wrote.
Though, this process needs optimisation indeed. And what we can do by
new software
1. development is to disable legitmation of censourship as a way of
keeping order (enabling autopoitical communication process) which gives
us non faked picture of society
2. easy build up of recognition among simmilar thinkers among of
thousands or hunders of thousands of users.
3. TOP communication protocol (transparent, open, public)
> > So, this means my engagement is optimised. This means less energy I
> > have to involve to get desired results. This means more interested
> > people who see work/result ratio is acceptable to them to try doing
> > themselves. As long as this work/result ratio is being strongly
> > impacted, I can notice political movement going out of it. Thing that
> > can hardly be ignored.
>
> OK. Let me try to rephrase how you work and/or want to work.
>
> You want all political organisations to let you come and speak in front
> of their adherents.
Yes. And I want all of them to come to Tiatkiv to speak if they wish
also. I do want to hear comments, critics and suggestions. I find them
usefull, not threatening. If somebody takes these things as a threat
/which is regularly case in political life/, I can ask you what is he
actually doing in politics anyway? Politics is handling of an open
system, there is no space for any sort of monopoly or teritory
protection as it is right now in politics, and that is what TOP
changes.
Those who see politics as territory they want to protect, not the space
based for the best things to happen in no matter who makes them, is not
usefull for society as long as he puts his personal interests before
common interests. TOP politics is in eliminating possiblity of
protection of territories, censorship or any other principle based on
closed systems that create discrpeancy between society and political
power. I find it be revlolutionary change based on essence of aproach
to politics.
> This is what you call being "open".
>
> Am I right?
Partially. To be right, you have to give full picture.
> What happens when hundreds if not thousands of people want to come and
> speak?
In accordance to their reputation and ability to write interesting
posts they will be noticed more or less easy. If we do build up trust
network, due to high optimisation of info flow we have to worry much
less is some usefull information lost in this process. Better system we
build, more efficient info flow and more efficient decisions and
actions.
> > Its not however, because with filters you choose how many posts you
> > want to see and of course under what criteria..
>
> Finally you do accept that some posts will be ignored by many people!
Some posts will allways be ignored. If I am extra troll and spammer and
not so bright and persistent and antisocial, I am rather sure that
after a while nobody will care what I am writing. I see no problem in
that as I do not see the reason why should we discuss over such obvious
things. Or you think that we should care about the fact that I am being
ignored by the people?
> Do you acknowledge that a popular forum will "drown" most posts under
> their numbers?
>
> Or, yourself, do you read *everything* in all forums you are visiting???
Of course not.
> > > The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic
> > > processes.
> >
> > What do you mean by democratic process? Is SD2 choosing reprensetative
> > democratic process?
>
> Of course. Although it's unnecessarily byzantine and strongly against
> Direct Democracy.
>
> But I just discovered on the chat that you are yourself against DD... :(
DD in a regularly defined manner is not so interesting thought as long
as it ignores fact that you need to be informed to make proper descion.
It also ignores direct individual responsibility, it equals good and
bad personal deeds, so those who are trying be good and those who are
not trying not to be bad, making non popular thing to become better,
enabling clasical oportunistic phenomenon that concretely destroyed Yu
socialism.
So, such DD is impotent as long as leaders of DD by their dogma have to
equal themselves with those who are only supporting members, who can
usually be destructive, not carrying for those who brought their energy
into process. So, at last congress (right word?) of WDDM you could
notice that 4 of members spend some time to draw a basic structural
model. Then they brought it up to latent members, even ME (!!!) who
never spend a minute to help that organisation, but I signed to see
what is going on. And I was member with equal rights with them by DD
default! So, I did not vote as long as I did not find myself be any
factor who should amen their decision. If I was carrying, that I would
participate in that process, I would bring my own energy and I would
deal with other members. But in this way it is bizzare.
So. As long as I knew some of those members, I could notice that
destructive ones said NO by default, some others made their dreamy
suggestions at that very moment even they could opennly participate
when the whole process was going on. But, when the draft was done, then
they found out they should comment it. Higly demotivating to lead in
such space. Higly demotivating to be the best as you can if ten persons
with bad mood that day can destroy all of your work.
All of that due to hypocricy of what they find be basic of DD. One
person = one vote. 50%+1 is decision. And that does not funcion. That
can not deal to destructive elements, untill the moment we are in front
of the world catastrophy where people will MUST to work hard to make
things better. All of that makes no sense at all.
And if you do support such thing, OK. I say, you are supporting highly
simplified models that ignore reality making themselves be impotent.
Not just now, but allways. If all that you can do is to look at Ancient
Geece to look for perfect system and now we live in info age, than
something is not right.
> > OK. What I wanted to make point was that no other political system but
> > democracy can accept basic thoughts of free software, which is freedom
> > of information as base of the whole structure.
>
> Any political system *could* accept Free Software.
I am talking about its essence. So, it could not accept its essence.
And that is freedom of information.
> Or is there somewhere in the universe a law stating that a dictatorial
> country *has* to ban it???
>
> Oh, and Free Software is not freedom of expression. It's just one kind
> of expression, mostly technical.
>
> echarp - http://leparlement.org/Features_request
ATB,
Gale
MG
I think you are a bit too negative about DD.
The fact that the way you tried to get impact and results via this
forum doesn't neccesary tell the whole story about the possibilities
for DD in the information age.
I have been part of my party, Aktivdemokrati.se for several years and
do not share your experiences.
My explanation of that is that we don't only rely on the forum debates
but also take action by votes about different things.
And by our continous voting model, only issues gained high interest
will be due for finishing, the rest will be lying there for years and
will not disturb the average voter/debater since we will be able to
sort the voting issues after accumulated support.
I'm not sure if you have seen our AD-model?:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods
As we see it, this model will solve both passivity problems for issues
that should be voted upon by many as well as the action problems (no
one listening to a good proposal) when taking a good proposal to a
decision.
Anyone can put up a vote and a good one will be voted upon more than a
issue written by a lunatic.
If the AD-model is implemented in any organization, the focus and
political gravity automaticly will be on what's proposed and discussed,
not on who might be put as represantives if any.
AD-model will include the possibility to delegate one or several issues
but the delegation will be with immediate recall.
So no rep(delegate) would come to think of ignoring what's discussed
and proposed in the forum and voting system.
You are making references to the antique Greece with all their problems
but you are forgetting that several things are very different today.
1. We have internet, giving full info flow of everything to everybody
(if TOP is implemented)
2. We have separated court system from political power, making the
arguments about Sokrates death as a proof of lemmings act, irrelevant.
Mark
echarp wrote:
[...}
>ec: What happens when hundreds if not thousands of people want to come and
> speak?
-M: Exactly - this is why having rank hierarchies can filter the
debate.
People would be encouraged to engage those of a similar political rank.
This cuts down on the noise and chatter, and leads to high quality
debate on the high end without having to simplify for the sake of the
lemmings.
> > > > This can be solved by filters, popular voting and simmilar stuff, where
> > > > the people, or better to say forum public chooses ideas/reprensetatives
> > > > whom they find relevant enouight to be heard. For an example, there is
> > > > a thought that we in Tiaktiv take SD2 reprensetative in public be third
> > > > factor in decision making process.
> > > However the filters can be, a popular forum will "drown" most posts
> > > under their numbers.
> > Its not however, because with filters you choose how many posts you
> > want to see and of course under what criteria..
>ec: Finally you do accept that some posts will be ignored by many people!
> Do you acknowledge that a popular forum will "drown" most posts under
> their numbers? Or, yourself, do you read *everything* in all forums you are visiting???
-M: Rank filtering!
> > > The parts where we could have influence is in requiring some democratic
> > > processes.
> > What do you mean by democratic process? Is SD2 choosing reprensetative
> > democratic process?
>ec: Of course. Although it's unnecessarily byzantine...
-M: NO! By using an advanced algorithm,
SIMPLICITY is created for the voters.
>ec:..and strongly against Direct Democracy.
-M: Its RD, and ALL RD is against DD.
But what EVERYONE wants is PARTICIPATORY democracy -
which SD2-S is more supportive of because excellence is rewarded with
rank.
By contrast, with DD, lemmings are given the same power as the
non-lemmings.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
MG
the user freely can control what he sees.
echarp
a *forum* and allow everybody on it.
This is _enough_ for you.
You also accept the fact that in a popular forum, filters will be used,
and that many posts will be discarded by many users.
You consider that this forum will force leaders to listen, that they
won't be able to ignore ideas and propositions.
I'm sorry to contradict you, it's *very* easy. In a political party, a
prominent figure *will* be able to filter almost anybody but another
prominent figure out of the picture.
This is politics. And a forum is just another political field where _some_
will be able to control the space.
How? Through filters! Through reputation! With their political force!
They could even use manipulation, shills or fake personas :-D
Forums are new and current political leaders don't use them. But if they
did, I think you wouldn't equate the mere existence of a forum with
openness. It probably was the same during the appearance of newspapers.
Do you understand what I mean?
(of course you can understand yet disagree, I just want to know if you
understand my argument)
> > But I just discovered on the chat that you are yourself against DD... :(
>
> DD in a regularly defined manner is not so interesting thought as long
> as it ignores fact that you need to be informed to make proper descion.
Where/how would DD, or for that matter RD, care about that???
Are you against referendum or popular initiative?
> It also ignores direct individual responsibility, it equals good and
> bad personal deeds, so those who are trying be good and those who are
> not trying not to be bad, making non popular thing to become better,
> enabling clasical oportunistic phenomenon that concretely destroyed Yu
> socialism.
Care to explain your vision of individual responsibility? Does it imply
public scrutiny? Shame? Trials?
Generally it is considered that a group using DD to make decisions will
be more responsible. You want a proof of that? :) Yourself, will you
feel more responsible of a decision you personally took, or of one taken
by someone else?
This is the very purpose and force of DD.
> All of that due to hypocricy of what they find be basic of DD. One
> person = one vote. 50%+1 is decision.
No.
50%+1 is just be one possible threshold. One person = one vote is a
democratic feature, whether RD or DD.
The largest difference between RD and DD is the emphasis on
_representatives_ *or* on _issues_.
> And that does not funcion. That can not deal to destructive elements,
> untill the moment we are in front of the world catastrophy where
> people will MUST to work hard to make things better. All of that makes
> no sense at all.
It has functioned before, it functions partially now (Switzerland).
> And if you do support such thing, OK. I say, you are supporting highly
> simplified models that ignore reality making themselves be impotent.
> Not just now, but allways. If all that you can do is to look at Ancient
> Geece to look for perfect system and now we live in info age, than
> something is not right.
Who is looking for "perfection"? I'm not.
Don't you agree that ancient Greece had the huge advantage of "working"?
It also was the first recorded democracy. Isn't that pragmatic enough? :)
> > > OK. What I wanted to make point was that no other political system but
> > > democracy can accept basic thoughts of free software, which is freedom
> > > of information as base of the whole structure.
> >
> > Any political system *could* accept Free Software.
>
> I am talking about its essence. So, it could not accept its essence.
> And that is freedom of information.
I disagree. Free Software is not an essence, it's a copyright system
which builds on top of scientific practices.
Any political system *could* also accept science.
I'm sure there currently are tyrannies or theocracies which accept
science *and* Free Software! ;)
Mark
>ec:[...] You consider that this forum will force leaders to listen, that they won't be able to ignore ideas and propositions. [...]it's *very* easy. In a political party, a prominent figure *will* be able to filter almost anybody but another prominent figure out of the picture.
-M: Agreed, this is why input fields and c-algorithms should be main
topic of discussion here. I have said this from the start. *WE* should
determine what the best filters are before the enemies do.
>ec: Generally it is considered that a group using DD to make decisions will
> be more responsible. You want a proof of that? :) Yourself, will you
> feel more responsible of a decision you personally took, or of one taken
> by someone else? This is the very purpose and force of DD.
-M: I think that there is some truth to this, but the data indicates
that DD isn't scalable for large communities.
> > All of that due to hypocricy of what they find be basic of DD. One
> > person = one vote. 50%+1 is decision.
>ec: No. 50%+1 is just be one possible threshold.
-M: Its the most common threshold.
>ec: One person = one vote is a democratic feature, whether RD or DD.
-M: democracy = when >50% of a population has voting power.
If some had more than another without earning it from others, then this
is a result of arbitrary privilege, hence is *oligarchy*.
So yes: "one person = one vote is a democratic feature, whether RD or
DD".
>ec: The largest difference between RD and DD is the emphasis on _representatives_ *or* on _issues_.
-M: No, representitives are for issues, so the main difference is *who*
decides the issues.
Its *issues and administrative reps* OR * issues and legislative reps*.
[...]
>ec: Who is looking for "perfection"? I'm not.
-M: I am looking for the closest that I can get.
echarp
> > In a political party, a prominent figure *will* be able to filter
> > almost anybody but another prominent figure out of the picture.
>
> of discussion here.
It's not just c-algo you should be discussing. But voting methods in
general.
You agreed to it, SD2 is just an umbrella system, meaning that you will
still need to use a voting method to decide issues.
But no, you want a complex and byzantine system *in order* to make sure
the common people don't directly participate in decision making. It's
really a goal, not a fault.
> I have said this from the start. *WE* should determine what the best
> filters are before the enemies do.
I'm very sorry. The line of thinking *us* against *ennemies* I don't
appreciate.
Plus I read some of the papers you linked to, many seem like
"Illuminati":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati paranoďa.
> > Generally it is considered that a group using DD to make decisions
> > will be more responsible. You want a proof of that? :) Yourself,
> > will you feel more responsible of a decision you personally took, or
> > of one taken by someone else? This is the very purpose and force of
> > DD.
>
> I think that there is some truth to this,
Cool. You acknowledge one quality of DD.
> but the data indicates that DD isn't scalable for large communities.
What data?
Ever considered decentralization? What about the use of internet to
enlarge the forum of the first Athenian democracy?
> > The largest difference between RD and DD is the emphasis on
> > _representatives_ *or* on _issues_.
>
> No, representitives are for issues, so the main difference is *who*
> decides the issues.
> Its *issues and administrative reps* OR * issues and legislative reps*.
Finally you seem to agree: politics is about issues. Why not let
participants decide on them directly? And if they don't want to decide
by themselves, to delegate their voice?
I know why, because you don't like the demos. You do not want the demo
to decide by itself, you want an indirection to make sure they don't
control their life.
You are not really a democrat. Because quite simply you don't like the
demo, you only want to control it "for its own good".
echarp - http://leparlement.org
Mark
> > >ec: In a political party, a prominent figure *will* be able to filter
> > > almost anybody but another prominent figure out of the picture.
> >M: Agreed, this is why input fields and c-algorithms should be main topic
> > of discussion here.
>ec: It's not just c-algo you should be discussing. But voting methods in
> general. You agreed to it, SD2 is just an umbrella system,...
-M: Yes, SD2 is an umbrella system, but...
>ec:..meaning that you will still need to use a voting method to decide issues.
-M: ...I also created SD2-Smartocracy, which is a specific voting
method.
>ec: But no, you want a complex and byzantine system *in order* to make sure the common people don't directly participate in decision making. It's really a goal, not a fault.
-M: Yes, as with all RD, and SD2-S is RD.
The lemmings should be disempowered,
but should be allowed to rise out of lemminghood.
The non-lemmings should then be rewarded with power.
But again, SD2-S is not 'complex and byzantine', but only uses
*internal* complexity to yield *external* simplicity.
> >M: I have said this from the start. *WE* should determine what the best
> > filters are before the enemies do.
>ec I'm very sorry. The line of thinking *us* against *enemies* I don't appreciate.
-M: Is someone who wants to *disempower you unfairly* an *enemy*?
How about someone, or a group of people, who want to inhibit the
socio-cultural evolutionary advancement of humanity for their own short
term adendas?
What is an enemy?
>ec: Plus I read some of the papers you linked to, many seem like
> "Illuminati":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati paranoïa.
-M: OK, I can see some similarity here. So? Are you now going to say
that the British Empire does not currently conspire against the
population?
Are my links unauthoritative?
You seem more interested in what my links *feel* like than if they are
*true* or not.
> > > Generally it is considered that a group using DD to make decisions
> > > will be more responsible. You want a proof of that? :) Yourself,
> > > will you feel more responsible of a decision you personally took, or
> > > of one taken by someone else? This is the very purpose and force of
> > > DD.
> >M: I think that there is some truth to this,
>ec: Cool. You acknowledge one quality of DD.
-M: I have friends who went to a school with some DD aspects, and I do
think that the direct power that they had encouraged responsible
thinking.
http://www.novaproj.org/
> >M:...but the data indicates that DD isn't scalable for large communities.
>ec: What data?
-M: There has been data collected about Intentional Communities by
anthopologists, and the effectiveness of DD in relationship to RD and
the size of the community has been noted.
Its generally known that DD doesn't scale. Here is some data:
http://directory.ic.org/iclist/
but I can't get you studies right now.
>ec: Ever considered decentralization?
-M: I have considered myself politicly a *decentralist* in the past,
but this approach is problematic. The oligarchs can play power games
with them to easily.
I think that labor forces are best compartmentlized at a nation-state
scale to keep the degeneracies of globalization from occuring.
>ec: What about the use of internet to enlarge the forum of the first Athenian democracy?
-M: This needs filtering, which means we are back to RD and
c-algorithms.
I think that SD2-S is best for what you are describing.
> > >ec: The largest difference between RD and DD is the emphasis on
> > > _representatives_ *or* on _issues_.
> >M: No, representitives are for issues, so the main difference is *who* decides the issues. Its *issues and administrative reps* OR * issues and legislative reps*.
>ec: Finally you seem to agree: politics is about issues.
-M: If you notice above, both categories still had reps.
>ec: Why not let participants decide on them directly?
-M: Because that is illusiory - it ignores the fact that reps are still
present.
You are trying to inject fantasy into politics.
>ec: And if they don't want to decide by themselves, to delegate their voice?
-M: With SD2-S, there is manditory delegation, and the direct vote is
still measured, and is decisive for deliberatory purposes.
>ec: I know why, because you don't like the demos.
-M: Fuck'em. They will hurt themselves if given the opportunity.
We must save the lemmings from themselves.
>ec: You do not want the demo to decide by itself, you want an indirection to make sure they don't control their life.
-M: Au contraire, I want them to control their lives instead of
destroying each other's lives.
>ec: You are not really a democrat. Because quite simply you don't like the demo, you only want to control it "for its own good".
-M: I think that >50% of the population or greater should provide data
input into the c-algorithm, so I am a democrat by my definition. And I
do think that information provided by the demo should be used so that
the demo can control the demo *for its own good*.
I wouldn't be controlling the demo, only giving it a less arbitrary and
less contrived tool of self-governance than others have suggested.
ketty
-M: I think that >50% of the population or greater should provide data
input into the c-algorithm, so I am a democrat by my definition.
What definition of democracy do you have? I assume you mean that with 50% or less there is no posibility of a majority, but...
With 50% + one person, the only way to summon up a majority would be for all of them to share the same opinion, and how likely is that? Or is that slight posibility enough for you?..
echarp
>
> We must save the lemmings from themselves.
> > You are not really a democrat. Because quite simply you don't like
> > the demo, you only want to control it "for its own good".
>
> I think that >50% of the population or greater should provide data
> input into the c-algorithm, so I am a democrat by my definition. And I
> do think that information provided by the demo should be used so that
> the demo can control the demo *for its own good*.
> I wouldn't be controlling the demo, only giving it a less arbitrary and
> less contrived tool of self-governance than others have suggested.
You might technically be a democrat, but I don't *consider* you a
democrat. Can you see the difference?
Plus, you seem to be conspiration driven. This might shed some light on
your vision:
* "paranoďa":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
* hate of the demo
(and no, I don't believe in an Illuminati or British empire
"conspiration":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29)
echarp - http://leparlement.org
MG
I can do that myself and don't need any for me unchangable system where
corrupt "leaders" filters for me.
I will tell you when I have problems filter out the parts I wan't.
Mark
ketty wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
> > -M: I think that >50% of the population or greater should provide data
> > input into the c-algorithm, so I am a democrat by my definition.
>K: What definition of democracy do you have? I assume you mean that with 50% or
> less there is no posibility of a majority, but...
-M: No, its just that with <50% would be an *oligarchy*, rule by the
few.
My definition: *government where >50% of the population or greater
provides data input into the c-algorithm*.
>K: With 50% + one person, the only way to summon up a majority would be for all of them to share the same opinion, and how likely is that? Or is that slight
> posibility enough for you?..
-M: No, a majority is a non-issue. I don't support populistic direct
democracy.
Mark
echarp wrote:
[...]
> > I think that >50% of the population or greater should provide data
> > input into the c-algorithm, so I am a democrat by my definition. And I
> > do think that information provided by the demo should be used so that
> > the demo can control the demo *for its own good*.
> > I wouldn't be controlling the demo, only giving it a less arbitrary and
> > less contrived tool of self-governance than others have suggested.
>ec: You might technically be a democrat, but I don't *consider* you a
> democrat. Can you see the difference?
-M: Yes, technical rigor has little meaning to you. :-(
>ec: Plus, you seem to be conspiration driven. This might shed some light on
> your vision:
> * "paranoïa":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
-M: OK, so?
Where are my links disproven?
>ec: * hate of the demo
-M: No, I love them, and I want to give them the tools to empower
themselves better.
Even your V.V.V proposal had a multiorder c-algorithm that would give
heavy filtering like what I propose.
>ec: (and no, I don't believe in an Illuminati or British empire
> "conspiration":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29)
-M: Most of the material here is true. Where is it disproven?
And how does my conspiracy awareness tarnish SD2-S?
ketty
-M: No, a majority is a non-issue. I don't support populistic direct
democracy.
If majority is a non-issue, then why the number 50% ?
Mark
ketty wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > -M: No, a majority is a non-issue. I don't support populistic direct
> > democracy.
>K: If majority is a non-issue, then why the number 50% ?
-M: Mathematicly, this is the least arbitrary demarkation between
*many* and *few*.
democracy= rule by the many
oligarchy= rule by the few
Simple?
ketty
>K: If majority is a non-issue, then why the number 50% ?
-M: Mathematicly, this is the least arbitrary demarkation between
*many* and *few*.
democracy= rule by the many
oligarchy= rule by the few
Simple?
Well, 100% would be no more arbitrary if not less.. If choosing between 100% and 50%, would you say one of them is more democratic? Or would you see them as the same?
Mark
>mg: I'm tired of your filtering stuff, Mark. I can do that myself...
-M: With SD2-S, you would set the fiters to your own parameters.
Among these are rank filters.
>mg:...and don't need any for me unchangable system where corrupt "leaders" filters for me.
-M: What system would that be? Not mine.
>mg: I will tell you when I have problems filter out the parts I wan't.
-M: OK. So would you like to know what the top ranked are posting?
This is why this would be an option.
Mark
ketty wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > >K: If majority is a non-issue, then why the number 50% ?
> >
> > -M: Mathematicly, this is the least arbitrary demarkation between
> > *many* and *few*.
> > democracy= rule by the many
> > oligarchy= rule by the few
> > Simple?
>K: Well, 100% would be no more arbitrary if not less.
-M: Mathematicians would differ.
>K: If choosing between 100% and 50%, would you say one of them is more democratic? Or would you see them as the same?
-M: My system has heavy quality filtering, so with my system, even
children could be encouraged to vote without expectation of adverse
outcomes.
I personally prefer as many people voting as possible, but I am just a
systems designer, and my system could even be used by tyrants and
oligarchs.(I would prefer not)
Gordan Ponjavic
> If I understand you correctly, to be *open* an organisation has to setup
> a *forum* and allow everybody on it.
>
> This is _enough_ for you.
>
> You also accept the fact that in a popular forum, filters will be used,
> and that many posts will be discarded by many users.
About fltering content..hmh...here comes the old problem of free vs
open, where free filteing process would be rather usefull. Yet, free
implies several questionable ideas, so I like to runnaway from that
part.
Nevertheless, if we based openness with equality standard, we could
solve that problem out.
> You consider that this forum will force leaders to listen, that they
> won't be able to ignore ideas and propositions.
They might be able to ignore. Yet, they wont be in position to control
their supporters on a base of informations, which is basic thing of
todays power structures.
> I'm sorry to contradict you, it's *very* easy. In a political party, a
> prominent figure *will* be able to filter almost anybody but another
> prominent figure out of the picture.
OK. I have nothing against their decision. If third party is not
dependent on filters of her leader, then its all right with me. Open
info flow is enabled, third party has chance to notice me and i have
the possiblity to gain my deserved reputation that would make me
interesting or not interesting to be listened. But this fact wont be
dependent on a prominent figure but on the trust network that is not
controled by anyone.
> This is politics. And a forum is just another political field where _some_
> will be able to control the space.
If we define this thing properly, they wont be in position to control
the space.
> How? Through filters! Through reputation! With their political force!
> They could even use manipulation, shills or fake personas :-D
If we base system on equality standards and I asume that has to be
basic thing for TOP software, then they wont be able to control
anything. They might manipulate, but in TOP system such thing becomes
obvious. In the same time, my reputation is not based on them, but on a
global trust network.
To be more precise, today when I go to some forum or group, people
already know me. So, my reputation is not dependent on any concrete
site/place, but on the people who use these groups as whole.
> Forums are new and current political leaders don't use them. But if they
> did, I think you wouldn't equate the mere existence of a forum with
> openness. It probably was the same during the appearance of newspapers.
Seems as we have to develop filtering software based on eqaulity soon
as possible. By making such thing be done, noone is superior any more,
so free market takes it place.
My firm belief is that informed people generally make better decisions
for the common good. I suppose this is what every democratic mind
believes also.
> Do you understand what I mean?
> (of course you can understand yet disagree, I just want to know if you
> understand my argument)
Yes.
> > > But I just discovered on the chat that you are yourself against DD... :(
> >
> > DD in a regularly defined manner is not so interesting thought as long
> > as it ignores fact that you need to be informed to make proper descion.
>
> Where/how would DD, or for that matter RD, care about that???
To be precise, I can not get properly involved in a process of decision
making over every single political issue. It is impossible. So, as long
as this is impossible, todays so called DDers (I consider myself be
DDer also, yet in another way of direct participation that is essence
of political process. Not voting) ignore this thing and in that way
they have to promote superficial decisions based on an average non
informed citizen, which is rather inferior to other political models
that can be called DD also.
> Are you against referendum or popular initiative?
I find it be good thing for todays systems. In future it might be
obsolete.
> > It also ignores direct individual responsibility, it equals good and
> > bad personal deeds, so those who are trying be good and those who are
> > not trying not to be bad, making non popular thing to become better,
> > enabling clasical oportunistic phenomenon that concretely destroyed Yu
> > socialism.
>
> Care to explain your vision of individual responsibility? Does it imply
> public scrutiny? Shame? Trials?
Yes, of course. Politics is not playing video games. Bad politics can
easily ruin whole society. It can send people to die for nothing, to
loose basic human rights etc. So, why should we accept irresponsible
behaviour in such serious matter? Such opinion makes no sense to me.
Of course. I do understand that in todays pseudodemocracy political
irresponsiblitiy is being apologized in order of giving free hands to
oligarchy. Yet, in some future system, in true democracy,
responsibility is what I conseder to be easily recognised as common
good.
What do you think about it?
> Generally it is considered that a group using DD to make decisions will
> be more responsible. You want a proof of that? :) Yourself, will you
> feel more responsible of a decision you personally took, or of one taken
> by someone else?
You simplify on wrong principle. If I am part of group of 100 where
these 100 people are obviously against thing I find reasonable, the
fact that I rised hand against their policy means not too much for me.
Communication tool that enables me optimised info flow will empoer me
much more than 1 vote in 100.
To be more precise, I havent been at elections for several years. And I
do not find it be bad thing. My vote did not matter and even if it did
matter, I did not have anyone to vote for. Possibility of creating
political alternative, to make direct influence on political process is
something that intersts me much more, than going to elections. Call me
weird :-p
> This is the very purpose and force of DD.
>
> > All of that due to hypocricy of what they find be basic of DD. One
> > person = one vote. 50%+1 is decision.
>
> No.
>
> 50%+1 is just be one possible threshold. One person = one vote is a
> democratic feature, whether RD or DD.
>
> The largest difference between RD and DD is the emphasis on
> _representatives_ *or* on _issues_.
>
> > And that does not funcion. That can not deal to destructive elements,
> > untill the moment we are in front of the world catastrophy where
> > people will MUST to work hard to make things better. All of that makes
> > no sense at all.
>
> It has functioned before, it functions partially now (Switzerland).
>
> > And if you do support such thing, OK. I say, you are supporting highly
> > simplified models that ignore reality making themselves be impotent.
> > Not just now, but allways. If all that you can do is to look at Ancient
> > Geece to look for perfect system and now we live in info age, than
> > something is not right.
>
> Who is looking for "perfection"? I'm not.
I am only looking for the best that is available. Not into perfection
either.
> Don't you agree that ancient Greece had the huge advantage of "working"?
> It also was the first recorded democracy. Isn't that pragmatic enough? :)
We can look at that, we can look for its flaws, that is good. In that
way we can build even better systems.
ATB,
Gale
> echarp - http://leparlement.org/Features_request
MG
We should about decisionmaking also;
That pageranking delegates can be an option as well as deciding
yourself.
No more lemmings talk, just different options OK?
And once we are there, start to program a TOP-system that has all these
options + the rest this group finds needed.
When can we start the workshop?