15M assembly requirements

[Canx]

Topics start to cross, better another thread :)

I've been reading how assemblies work here:

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1064412/0/acampadasol/asamblea/15m/

If we accept we want to support assemblies then we have to think if
RealDemocracy will support:

- asyncronous deliberation (real time) -> no time restrictions or
measured in days, people can delay their answers, more similar to
yours mockups.

- syncronous deliberation (delayed) -> meetings with time
restrictions in hours, where people can chat and add their realtime
comments as ammendments/proposals, vote them, etc... where only who
is online is able to participate in decisions. I see it more like an
informal version for fast consensus.

- a mix of both -> for example, big decisions would choose an
asyncronous deliberation event, and small decisions or comission
meeting would choose a real time deliberation.

I think that support for a real time assembly changes all!

On 30 mayo, 09:29, rafael latorre lopez villalta <sauc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, in fact the app was tought as a tool to deal with weak points of
> assemblies but to use its strong points.
>
> One example of use could be this:
> * The main points of the assembly manifest are set as the areas, you know,
> instead of its usual areas such as economics, culture, etc we would have
> cease of corruption, open lists, direct democracy, etc.
> * In each area we would have proposals to deal with the area, proposals that
> could be supported, declined by problems and improved as we saw before and
> could be participated without too much problem by thousands of users.
> * Proposals could open their way out to tangible actions to be carried out.
>
> PD: Simple but cool tutorial, I didn't knew about 1 & 5 shortcuts but
> always missed them. I would add Ctrl+Scroll for zooming tough.
>
> 2011/5/30 Canx <canch...@gmail.com>
>
> > I got flashed with your answer :). I've been searching for other
> > people using Inkscape to do mockups and I even found a tutorial!
>
> >http://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/5/5f/FUDCon-Toronto_2009-Presentat...
>
> > I agree that first we must understand what we want and what we
> > reasonably can do. It's interesting define which public we are aiming
> > for. For example, could Real Democracy be used to organize 15M
> > assemblies? That requirement was made this weekend in Agora dev group:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/pdi-aplicacion2/browse_thread/thread/3...
>

[Rafa D. Latorre López Villalta]

I believe that not getting time to think and write down good answers
and comments its generally harmful. In fact, is one of the things I
see as a weak point of assemblies, hot headed decissions.

By the way both problem discussion as the long before commented
"discussion section" could use a little Javascript to make
conversations more dinamic, not like a chat but more like how Facebook
shows new comments on your wall. That may take it closer to your mixed
suggestion. On the other hand, it would increase servers load.

[Canx]

Exactly, I was thinking something more like a Facebook wall, with a
"like" button for each comment. That would be the dynamic,
disorganized part where all ideas are born.
Then starts a refinement phase where ideas arisen are ordered.
Comments liked would be classified in proposals, arguments, counter-
arguments, to finally achieve a tree structure or mindmap.
The last part could be a voting process where the best proposals
survive and consensus is achieved. If not you always can start from
the begining.
I even thought of a timed, flexible process to switch between these
modes.

What do you think? To complex? :) I'll try to draw this on inkscape to
make it clear, but first I also have to make up my mind!

On May 30, 9:38 pm, Rafa D. Latorre López Villalta <sauc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[rafael latorre lopez villalta]

Nope, it isn't too complex and I mostly agree. The only part in what I have been doubting, in fact still doubting, is in the last one since voting and accepting ideas would mean two things: accepted ideas are perfect and rejected ones can't be improved. Obviously those two facts are false, but I don't come up with something not too complex to handle it :/ 

And that isn't all. Ongoing proposals could have improvements as they go, closing them wouldn't allow it.

PD: When I talk about complexity almost always I'm talking about users, we are too bold to worry about things like that

2011/5/31 Canx <canc...@gmail.com>

[Canx]

Yes, the voting process should not discard a point in a black or white
basis, tt's more like tones of gray. There is no one solution for
everybody so in case consensus is not possible RealDemocracy could
achieve different good solutions for diferent subgroups. Each subgroup
would arrive to a different solution. Is that a problem? Maybe only if
groups share the same resources...

By the way, there's an interesting online event tomorrow about
AgoraOnRails if anyone is interested:

http://wiki.agoraciudadana.org/index.php?title=Reuniones/01/06/20011

On May 31, 12:09 pm, rafael latorre lopez villalta <sauc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nope, it isn't too complex and I mostly agree. The only part in what I have
> been doubting, in fact still doubting, is in the last one since voting and
> accepting ideas would mean two things: accepted ideas are perfect and
> rejected ones can't be improved. Obviously those two facts are false, but I
> don't come up with something not too complex to handle it :/
>
> And that isn't all. Ongoing proposals could have improvements as they go,
> closing them wouldn't allow it.
>
> PD: When I talk about complexity almost always I'm talking about users, we
> are too bold to worry about things like that
>

> 2011/5/31 Canx <canch...@gmail.com>