Pretty serious issues with the Manifesto editing/voting process
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Alberto
Sep 5, 2009, 2:42:54 PM9/5/09
to eups20
Hello everyone,
so I've done my homework and uploaded my own version of the Manifesto,
as well as rating a couple of versions that were already there.
However, I would like to draw your attention to a couple pretty
serious flaws that I sense in the process as per my experience in
taking part in it.
The first flaw is that THE TOOL SUCKS. I normally refrain from making
this kind of claim, but I am ready to make an exception here. Mixedink
is badly designed, because it encourages the proliferation of slightly
different versions of the same document rather than focus on two or
three different strategies for writing one; and it is badly
programmed. Example of the latter: when you submit your version, the
program copies your text into a cache, erases it from the drafts
directory in the server, THEN writes the version onto the appropriate
directory, or so it seems. I had a wifi glitch as I clicked "Submit",
and the result was that the upload aborted AND I lost my draft. The
back button would not work: the damn thing's in flash (!), so there's
no chronology either. Apparently this happened to David too (I had not
lost an entire document for lack of saving in perhaps five years, I am
a multiple backups kind of guy).
The second flaw is that THE PROCESS LACKS TRANSPARENCY. In order to
cast a vote we should be reading all of the what? 15 slightly
different versions. No one is going to. Not even I did it, I tried to
figure out which were the main ones and rated them. It is a case of
increased pluralism reducing transparency: 15 versions of the same
document produce a smoke curtain.
The third flaw is that we are called on to invite our friends and
contacts to participate, but WE DO NOT PROVIDE GUIDANCE. When I hit
the Mixedink website I was like “wtf?” and I had to call on David to
explain me what to prioritize, it being unrealistic to read and rate
the whole thing.
Here’s a suggestion. We know that there are fewer people willing to do
collaborative editing than people willing to rate finished versions,
so I think we should do it in two steps. Step one is: David, Paul,
whoever is pulling weight here go in and select the two, max three
versions that look the most promising. I am willing to trust the
rowing committee here, as I am sure most of you. Then they take these
and put them somewhere where they can be rated and commented at
minimum effort (ideally with no need for registration: maybe a simple
blog post). THEN we go full on Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, whatever
and invite people to rate and comment. Then we amend the winner on the
basis of the comments, and we send the whole thing to Malmo. What does
everyone think?
so I've done my homework and uploaded my own version of the Manifesto,
as well as rating a couple of versions that were already there.
However, I would like to draw your attention to a couple pretty
serious flaws that I sense in the process as per my experience in
taking part in it.
The first flaw is that THE TOOL SUCKS. I normally refrain from making
this kind of claim, but I am ready to make an exception here. Mixedink
is badly designed, because it encourages the proliferation of slightly
different versions of the same document rather than focus on two or
three different strategies for writing one; and it is badly
programmed. Example of the latter: when you submit your version, the
program copies your text into a cache, erases it from the drafts
directory in the server, THEN writes the version onto the appropriate
directory, or so it seems. I had a wifi glitch as I clicked "Submit",
and the result was that the upload aborted AND I lost my draft. The
back button would not work: the damn thing's in flash (!), so there's
no chronology either. Apparently this happened to David too (I had not
lost an entire document for lack of saving in perhaps five years, I am
a multiple backups kind of guy).
The second flaw is that THE PROCESS LACKS TRANSPARENCY. In order to
cast a vote we should be reading all of the what? 15 slightly
different versions. No one is going to. Not even I did it, I tried to
figure out which were the main ones and rated them. It is a case of
increased pluralism reducing transparency: 15 versions of the same
document produce a smoke curtain.
The third flaw is that we are called on to invite our friends and
contacts to participate, but WE DO NOT PROVIDE GUIDANCE. When I hit
the Mixedink website I was like “wtf?” and I had to call on David to
explain me what to prioritize, it being unrealistic to read and rate
the whole thing.
Here’s a suggestion. We know that there are fewer people willing to do
collaborative editing than people willing to rate finished versions,
so I think we should do it in two steps. Step one is: David, Paul,
whoever is pulling weight here go in and select the two, max three
versions that look the most promising. I am willing to trust the
rowing committee here, as I am sure most of you. Then they take these
and put them somewhere where they can be rated and commented at
minimum effort (ideally with no need for registration: maybe a simple
blog post). THEN we go full on Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, whatever
and invite people to rate and comment. Then we amend the winner on the
basis of the comments, and we send the whole thing to Malmo. What does
everyone think?
planspark
Sep 5, 2009, 3:52:34 PM9/5/09
to eups20
Phase 3 of the Open Government Dialogue here in the US also used
MixedInk and your post confirms a lot of the feedback I heard at the
time.
More and more, I tend to believe that a better approach to
collaboratively writing documents of this kind (where it is essential
to synthesize a lot of previous, often divergent input and/or agree on
commonly understood language for complex topics) is to iterate between
a small group of expert authors and a larger group of reviewers.
A pretty good example how this process can work is the crafting of the
Public Engagement Principles document led by NCDD earlier this year
(http://thataway.org/pep). It took a team of up to a dozen or so core
editors and maybe four or five iterations to arrive at a version that
mostly everyone could agree on. To be fair, it's worth mentioning
that there wasn't much disagreement about the general direction this
document should take, and the core editors are all trusted members of
the community. So even though that may not always be the case, it
seems the process would generally be more efficient.
Tim
MixedInk and your post confirms a lot of the feedback I heard at the
time.
More and more, I tend to believe that a better approach to
collaboratively writing documents of this kind (where it is essential
to synthesize a lot of previous, often divergent input and/or agree on
commonly understood language for complex topics) is to iterate between
a small group of expert authors and a larger group of reviewers.
A pretty good example how this process can work is the crafting of the
Public Engagement Principles document led by NCDD earlier this year
(http://thataway.org/pep). It took a team of up to a dozen or so core
editors and maybe four or five iterations to arrive at a version that
mostly everyone could agree on. To be fair, it's worth mentioning
that there wasn't much disagreement about the general direction this
document should take, and the core editors are all trusted members of
the community. So even though that may not always be the case, it
seems the process would generally be more efficient.
Tim
Alberto
Sep 6, 2009, 7:56:54 AM9/6/09
to eups20
Thanks Tim. Good to know that we are not the only people who make
mistakes at picking tools. :-)
A.
mistakes at picking tools. :-)
A.
david osimo
Sep 6, 2009, 9:20:49 AM9/6/09
to eup...@googlegroups.com
Alberto,
I share your concerns. It's true that the tool is far from perfect, but it's the best we have considering our zero ressources and our limited IT skills. Regarding the method, we're all learning by doing and currently there is little dialogue possible.
Your suggestion is good and I suggest below a way to adopt it. But there are 2 important things:
- we want an open process and allow anyone to contribute, not just the steering committee.
- we cannot change the process as soon as we discover a flaw, otherwise people get lost.
So I propose that at this moment we stick with the tool and we ask people:
- to accompany a version with a short blog entry describing the main ideas (possibly on eups20.wordpress.com) .
- to vote and to ask other people to vote for their version, in order to start filtering the proposals.
Finally, I agree with your proposal that we should select the 3/4 most rated versions and go for a public contest later in september.
In conclusion: I invite you to vote, propose and BLOG about your manifesto, in order to highlight the main points why people should vote for you. Paul Johnston has done it already and has some good discussion ongoing. I will do the same. It's kind like the report (blog entry) that accompanies a law proposal (the manifesto).
I have created a generic wordpress id: eups20author pw: malmo09 that anyone can use for writing your post accompanying the manifesto.
Thanks a lot to all
david
PS loved your funky manifesto!
> This is our e-government EU strategy, let's make it better! Please help drafting an open EU declaration on public services 2.0 at http://eups20.wordpress.com
skype, twitter: osimod
mobile: +32-498088323
Paul Johnston
Sep 6, 2009, 9:51:36 AM9/6/09
to eups20
Interesting discussion and it certainly is true that you only see the
defects of a tool when you try to use it in practice! Like David, I do
not think that we should abandon mixedink at this point - it just gets
too confusing for everyone. I think the best way forward is to keep
going with the tool, but also use the blog to discuss and debate the
different versions. For example, I would be quite happy to do a post
every day or two on the blog with my thoughts on new versions and
amendments etc. If others want to do the same thing, great. That plus
comments on blog posts should give us a fair amount of scope for open,
constructive discussion. Maybe then as David suggests later in
September we will narrow it down to two or three versions and invite
people in to vote for the best version.
Paul
PS I also liked many aspects of the "funky" version!
> david.os...@gmail.com
> skype, twitter: osimodhttp://egov20.wordpress.com
defects of a tool when you try to use it in practice! Like David, I do
not think that we should abandon mixedink at this point - it just gets
too confusing for everyone. I think the best way forward is to keep
going with the tool, but also use the blog to discuss and debate the
different versions. For example, I would be quite happy to do a post
every day or two on the blog with my thoughts on new versions and
amendments etc. If others want to do the same thing, great. That plus
comments on blog posts should give us a fair amount of scope for open,
constructive discussion. Maybe then as David suggests later in
September we will narrow it down to two or three versions and invite
people in to vote for the best version.
Paul
PS I also liked many aspects of the "funky" version!
> skype, twitter: osimodhttp://egov20.wordpress.com
Alberto
Sep 7, 2009, 7:07:05 AM9/7/09
to eups20
On Sep 6, 3:51 pm, Paul Johnston <paulj...@cisco.com> wrote:
> For example, I would be quite happy to do a post
> every day or two on the blog with my thoughts on new versions and
> amendments etc.
Paul, that is very generous of you, and I think it would be a very,
> For example, I would be quite happy to do a post
> every day or two on the blog with my thoughts on new versions and
> amendments etc.
very useful contribution. Kudos
I will write a short intro to the funky manifesto and send it to David
for insertion onto the blog.
david osimo
Sep 7, 2009, 7:15:14 AM9/7/09
to eup...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Alberto!
you can also post directly using id eups20author and pw malmo09
ciao
david
> This is our e-government EU strategy, let's make it better! Please help drafting an open EU declaration on public services 2.0 at http://eups20.wordpress.com
skype, twitter: osimod
mobile: +32-498088323
Alberto
Sep 7, 2009, 12:54:22 PM9/7/09
to eups20
Ok, I'll post directly then :)
On Sep 7, 1:15 pm, david osimo <david.os...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Alberto!
> you can also post directly using id eups20author and pw malmo09
>
> ciao
> david
>
> > This is our e-government EU strategy, let's make it better! Please
On Sep 7, 1:15 pm, david osimo <david.os...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Alberto!
> you can also post directly using id eups20author and pw malmo09
>
> ciao
> david
>
> > This is our e-government EU strategy, let's make it better! Please
> help drafting an open EU declaration on public services 2.0 at http://
> eups20.wordpress.com
>
> david.os...@gmail.com
> skype, twitter: osimodhttp://egov20.wordpress.com
> eups20.wordpress.com
>
> david.os...@gmail.com
Tim
Oct 4, 2009, 6:19:11 PM10/4/09
to eups20
FYI
Looks like a MixedInk or similar model might get adopted by the UK
government sometime soon:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/04/conservative-hague-parliament-voters-bills
Looks like a MixedInk or similar model might get adopted by the UK
government sometime soon:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/04/conservative-hague-parliament-voters-bills
Alberto
Oct 5, 2009, 7:24:45 AM10/5/09
to eups20
God help them, then :-)
A.
On Oct 5, 12:19 am, Tim <plansp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI
>
> Looks like a MixedInk or similar model might get adopted by the UK
> government sometime soon:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/04/conservative-hague-par...
A.
On Oct 5, 12:19 am, Tim <plansp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI
>
> Looks like a MixedInk or similar model might get adopted by the UK
> government sometime soon:
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages