The laws application
daonb
The goal of this application is to let everyone take part in an open
legislation process. A law is created with its first draft and is
taken out of the system when it's approved by the legislative body or
"enacted", so when I refer to a law I really talk about a "proposed
law".
A specific law always starts with a problem or an "issue" the is not
answered by the current laws. "Smoking in public places harms non-
smokers" is one example of an issue that motivated laws in many
countries. Polinax users can publish issues, review community issues
and grade them.
Starting a new law the user marks all the issues his law addresses.
He than writes the first draft of the law (format?), publish it and
invite his friends to review and discuss it. Users can chose to
"follow" laws they are interested in. The number of followers will be
used to rank the laws.
Mimicking the way open source projects work, at the beginning only the
law creator can edit the law. Later, the creator can grant "edit"
privileges to followers he trusts. Once the team of editors feels the
law is finished, they will flag it as "ready for review". Next the
editors will be joined by legislative professionals who will have edit
privileges, working together to reach a consensus on a valid draft
that will be passed to a pricing committee setting the cost of the
law. Once the price is set, the law is flagged as "finished" inviting
users to vote (how long will a law be up for voting?).
In case the community of a certain law feels the creator is not doing
a good job, they will be able to copy the law and choose a new leader.
In free software projects, this is called a fork:
"In free software, forks often result from a schism over different
goals or personality clashes. In a fork, both parties assume nearly
identical code bases but typically only the larger group, or whoever
controls the web site, will retain the full original name and the
associated user community. Thus there is a reputation penalty
associated with forking. The relationship between the different teams
can be cordial (e.g., Ubuntu and Debian) or very bitter (X.Org Server
and XFree86, or cdrtools and cdrkit)." (Wikipedia: fork)
Your thoughts and comments are welcome,
Benny
dror reshef
2. אני יכול לעקוב אחר חוק שאני לא מסכים איתו , ואני יכול לתמוך בחוק גם
אם אני לא רוצה לעקוב אחריו (כי יש שם אנשים שאני סומך על שיקול הדעת
שלהם ואני לא מומחה בתחום).
3. לי נראה באופן אינטואטיבי לבצע מערכת שתחכה את דרך הפעולה של חוקים
קיימים בפרלמנטים (מבחינת, אם זה עובד למה להמציא את זה מחדש) - לכן משהו
כמו ניסוח ראשוני של החוק (לבד או בקבוצה), קריאה טרומית, קריאה ראשונה,
דיון בוועדות מקצועיות לקבלת הסתייגויות ושינויים מכל מי שאכפת לו או מי
שרוצה להכניס שינויים, ואז קריאה שניה (ושלישית?, לא יודע בשביל מה
ההפרדה בין שתיהן, שלרוב אינה קיימת).
אם כבר צריך לבדוק מה ההבדל בין חוק שהכנסת מחוקקת לבין חוק שמחוקק על
ידי העם - זה נראה לי יותר פשוט מאשר לנסות לבדוק מה התכונות המשותפות
בין פרוייקט קוד פתוח לבין חוק.
דוגמה אחת להבדל - אם 3 קבוצות מנסות לפתח את אותה אפליקציה - הן קודם כל
מבזבזות את הזמן שלהן, בצורה דרמטית הרבה יותר מאשר מבזבזות משאבים
ציבוריים. לעומת זאת בחוקים של מדינה
- יש בסופו של דבר רק סט מסויים של חוקים, שצריכים לעבוד בהתאמה זה לזה
(לעומת קוד פתוח שבו תוכונות שונת לא חייבות להתאים זו לזו)
- יש משאבים ציבוריים שמתבזבזים על תהליך החקיקה - 1. הזמן ותשומת הלב של
הציבור 2. הזמן ותשומת הלב של מומחים מקצועיים ושל ארגונים ללא מטרת רווח
שרוצים לקדם נושאים.
מה ההבדלים בין חוקים בכנסת לבין חוקים שהעם מציע
1. בחקיקה מטעם העם יש סבירות הרבה יותר גבוה של חוקי זבל שצריך לסנן
אותם - חוקים שלסותרים חוקים אחרים, או סותרים חוקי יסוד, או חוקים
שהעלות שלהם גבוה מידי או שהיוצרים שלהם לא מודעים לכך שהם יחמירו בעיות
גדולות יותר ממה שיפתרו
אפשר לחשוב על כל מיני מנגנוי סינון - לא כדאי שהם יהיו ריכוזיים (מוביל
לשחיתות וגם לעומס על המערכת) - לדוגמה דיון מקדים על הרעיון המרכזי של
החוק בפורומים או דבר דומה.
2. בחקיקה מטעם העם יהיו הרבה יותר הצעות חוק
3. בחקיקה מטעם העם יהיו הרבה יותר משתתפים בדיונים סביב החוק - בעיקר
ככל שהחוקים יותר מתקדמים לקראת ההצבעה -
4. בתהליך חקיקה מטעם העם יש הרבה יותר אנשים עם הטרוגניות בהבנה שלהם
לגבי נושאים כמו אכיפה, הרקע המקצועי של החוק
5. בסופו של דבר המצביעים שמצביעים על החוקים הם לאו דווקא משכילים
בנושא ולא עובדים בחקיקה - ולכן יש להם פחות זמן לקרוא את החוק ופחות
זמן להחליט אם הם בעד חוק כזה או אחר.
כמה פתרונות אפשריים לזה
- לנסות לרכז דיונים לפי חוק לפי מספר הדעות והעמדות, ולא לפי מספר
המשתתפים בדיון.
- לתת משקל יותר גדול במהלך הדיונים למי שיש לו רקע מקצועי בנושא (?)
להפריד במהלך הדיון בין עובדות לדעות (?)
- נקודה שצריך לזכור - אם בכל שבוע כל האזרחים יצטכו להחליט אם הם תומכים
או מתנגדים ל 100 הצעות שכל אחת מהן הם צריכים לקרא עליה 7 עמודים - זה
לא יעבוד. (אגב, בגלל זה יש חשיבות בעיני לפתרון של דמוקרטיה דינאמית).
daonb
I want to keep the discussions in English as I hope to attract
developers from all over the world.
> 2. אני יכול לעקוב אחר חוק שאני לא מסכים איתו , ואני יכול לתמוך בחוק גם
> אם אני לא רוצה לעקוב אחריו (כי יש שם אנשים שאני סומך על שיקול הדעת
> שלהם ואני לא מומחה בתחום).
Separating the 'support' from the 'follow' options, users can more
passively support laws or follow laws they don't agree with. it makes
sense, although it might give the user too many options and confuse
him. I'll try and keep them separate for now.
> 3. לי נראה באופן אינטואטיבי לבצע מערכת שתחכה את דרך הפעולה של חוקים
> קיימים בפרלמנטים (מבחינת, אם זה עובד למה להמציא את זה מחדש) - לכן משהו
> כמו ניסוח ראשוני של החוק (לבד או בקבוצה), קריאה טרומית, קריאה ראשונה,
> דיון בוועדות מקצועיות לקבלת הסתייגויות ושינויים מכל מי שאכפת לו או מי
> שרוצה להכניס שינויים, ואז קריאה שניה (ושלישית?, לא יודע בשביל מה
> ההפרדה בין שתיהן, שלרוב אינה קיימת).
Why take open source software development as a base and not the
current parliament practices? because all the challenges you point out
are the same challenges that open source software face quite
successfully. We know how to get a large group of users working
together on developing code that is ready for release. There are some
differences between software code and legal code, but they are minor
compared to the challenge of online development. As for the current
legislative practices, many of them are a result of technical
limitations that shouldn't be copied to the web, but some of them
should definitely be integrated into the online process.
> - נקודה שצריך לזכור - אם בכל שבוע כל האזרחים יצטכו להחליט אם הם תומכים
> או מתנגדים ל 100 הצעות שכל אחת מהן הם צריכים לקרא עליה 7 עמודים - זה
> לא יעבוד. (אגב, בגלל זה יש חשיבות בעיני לפתרון של דמוקרטיה דינאמית).
I completely agree, people will end up with too many laws to vote on.
For that, I'm thinking of the 'my_parliment' application, which will
allow each user to elect leading contributors to his own personal
parliament. The user can review the parliament's votes and reason for
each law, or he can even let them vote for him. But that's for
later...
טל ירון
Your working model is great. It definitely worked with open source
projects. but I ask my self, if the process of legislation is the same
as the process of producing a software?
I find couple of things that are different:
* the product of the open-source community is a software that runs on
a machine. the product of the laws-community is a law that runs on
human community. in order for the software to run properly, it has to
oblige to the machine rules. In order for the law to work properly, it
has to be excepted by the community consensus (this means, that most
people must think they should live by this law). So I ask myself, what
is the best way to get that consensus?
* Also I ask myself what will happen if I would like to add a little
adjustment to the law, and I do not have the privileges to edit the
law, and I do not get the consent of the editing group? should I fork?
I thin it is not practical, because I'll need to build a new community
just for a little adjustment.
Therefore, I find the Wikipedia model of work, much more suitable for
getting consensus. A lot of people works together to achieve
consensus. They do not have a "king". Everybody can try to enter his
adjustment and debate it with others. Although you can build a new
law, you will have more chances to influence the group, by staying in
the current law. In such groups, there is not one authoritative
dictator that you have to convince. This processes, which is advanced
in WikiDion, I believe will reduce central power, and enable consensus
more easily then the process of benevolent dictatorship, which promote
more easily, as I understand, properties of power and self-esteem .
Those properties may work well on a machine, but not on human
community.
Your thoughts on this subject, are most important for me.
All the best,
Tal
benny daon
Hi Benny,
Your working model is great. It definitely worked with open source
projects. but I ask my self, if the process of legislation is the same
as the process of producing a software?
I ask the same question...
I find couple of things that are different:
* the product of the open-source community is a software that runs on
a machine. the product of the laws-community is a law that runs on
human community. in order for the software to run properly, it has to
oblige to the machine rules. In order for the law to work properly, it
has to be excepted by the community consensus (this means, that most
people must think they should live by this law). So I ask myself, what
is the best way to get that consensus?
The law actually runs in the courts, where judges use it to test if a certain individual has broken the law. It also runs in the government, where enforcement agencies need to understand it so they can catch offenders. The consent of ordinary citizens can help a legal citizen run more smoothly, but it is in no way necessary.
* Also I ask myself what will happen if I would like to add a little
adjustment to the law, and I do not have the privileges to edit the
law, and I do not get the consent of the editing group? should I fork?
I thin it is not practical, because I'll need to build a new community
just for a little adjustment.
You're right, forking is quite rare. Normally you will find a way to convince the community to accept your adjustments or find another law to work on.
Therefore, I find the Wikipedia model of work, much more suitable for
getting consensus.
While that might be true, I think consensus is impractical. The Wikipedia model works best when article raise little interest. Indeed, most articles are like that and the result is pretty good. But when you get to articles like "Palestine", you need a ruler (I tried adding refrence to the event of 1921, 1929, 1936-1939 with no success).
Laws, by nature are more important than wikipedia articles, so I'm sure they need a ruler. Furthermore, because laws are code that is executed by other systems - they are quite fragile. If you are not careful editing a law you changing a few word can change a laws' entire meaning.
I don't think threre's one solution that fits all, and while the wikiwiki system might work for some type of content, I don't believe it's right for the formulation of laws.
Tal Yaron
Hi Benny, Here is my replies:
I find couple of things that are different:
* the product of the open-source community is a software that runs on
a machine. the product of the laws-community is a law that runs on
human community. in order for the software to run properly, it has to
oblige to the machine rules. In order for the law to work properly, it
has to be excepted by the community consensus (this means, that most
people must think they should live by this law). So I ask myself, what
is the best way to get that consensus?
The law actually runs in the courts, where judges use it to test if a certain individual has broken the law. It also runs in the government, where enforcement agencies need to understand it so they can catch offenders. The consent of ordinary citizens can help a legal citizen run more smoothly, but it is in no way necessary.
I think you are basically right that the laws are enforced by the judicial branch of the the state and the law enforcement branch (like the police). This is true to democracy, as well as to tyranny. But the difference between tyranny and democracy, is that laws in tyranny are set by the tyrant, whereas in democracy, it is set by the majority of the people. The rules in democracy are set by the people, and therefore are accepted by the people. Therefore you do not have to use much enforcement power to make people to comply to the laws.
there is also something very different between open source and laws. in an open source there is unlimited space for new programs. you can develop what ever program you want, and it will not cause any harm to other people. Yet for laws, there is only one system of laws. and the laws that are accepted will be enforced on everybody. This will cause much anxiety and distress by people, how could not influence a very well organized group of open-source-law developers.
This is the reason that I think a consensus process is better for laws then benevolent dictatorship process. It may be slower then the dictatorship, but it will get more consensus, and therefor will be excepted more easily by the people
* Also I ask myself what will happen if I would like to add a little
adjustment to the law, and I do not have the privileges to edit the
law, and I do not get the consent of the editing group? should I fork?
I thin it is not practical, because I'll need to build a new community
just for a little adjustment.
You're right, forking is quite rare. Normally you will find a way to convince the community to accept your adjustments or find another law to work on.
This again stress the point of "one system of laws". If you do not like a law that a group builds, you will not have a privilege to go elsewhere. The final law may effect your life for the worse. Therefore, I suspect, laws in the dictatorship process will cause a lot of antagonism.
Therefore, I find the Wikipedia model of work, much more suitable for
getting consensus.
While that might be true, I think consensus is impractical. The Wikipedia model works best when article raise little interest. Indeed, most articles are like that and the result is pretty good. But when you get to articles like "Palestine", you need a ruler (I tried adding refrence to the event of 1921, 1929, 1936-1939 with no success).
Laws, by nature are more important than wikipedia articles, so I'm sure they need a ruler. Furthermore, because laws are code that is executed by other systems - they are quite fragile. If you are not careful editing a law you changing a few word can change a laws' entire meaning.
I don't think threre's one solution that fits all, and while the wikiwiki system might work for some type of content, I don't believe it's right for the formulation of laws.
I know what you are talking about. Here in the Hebrew wikipedia, there are a lot of body-gurds for articals, but they are not dictators. They will fight with you over an article, but if you can not solve the problem, you can bring the problem before the community, and the community judges, and helps getting in to consensus about the article.
Yesterday, I talked with Udi Bauman, and he suggested a new additional procces that may solve some of our problems. He said that after we complit our laws (In what ever procces we decide), there is a logical proceses that with a community you can validate the laws that were developed. I suggest that Udi will explain the process.
Best,
Tal
--
חבר בתנועה לדמוקרטיה ישירה (http://kol1.org)