Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation

["marc" <marc AT merkstduwas.de>]

Hi Michael,

There is always time, when people doing the right things together ;o)

So you wrote
> Although I'm not a member of the Meinungsfindungstool working group, I
> have a personal concern with what you're working on.  Specifically it
> involves the problem of "split consensus" as Thomas von der Elbe has
> called it, or "split opinion formation" in your own terms.

To be honest you don't need to be a member of our working group - even not
of Pirate Party - when you want to cooperate with us. It's all about coming
together and working on the right things.

> But first I have some questions.  Do you have time to answer?

Sure, you are welcome.

> Marc said, October 10:
> > One possible answer our working groups comes out with is, that we need to
> > define kind of standardization. Like the W3C standardizes the internet
> > and
> > Business Entity Model...

> And in reply to Pietro, October 16:
> > The idea is to have a common base (framework of workflows and
> > entities) for all tools to enable the interaction and extensibility
> > of the overal process of decision-making. Therefore we need a common
> > understanding of how workflows and entities interacts in the
> > process.

> I try to picture what you describe (pardon my ASCII):

Sorry, I can't cite your ascii ;o)

> Here T1 and T2 are competing tools for the purpose of opinion forming.
> A user may choose T1 or T2.  But regardless of the choice (say it is
> T2), the user will remain part of the same overall opinion forming
> process (M).  So he/she may continue to work with other users who make
> different choices (T1).  This technical freedom of choice is made
> possible by the common standards, practices and/or databases (S) that
> are shared between the competing tools.  Is this picture correct?

Yes, that's what our working group tries to establish.

And even more, if the user starts with T1 and then recognizes that T2 fits 
better to his needs, than he can just switch over to T2, if T2 provides a 
migration path to the Common Business Entity Model (CBEM) ;o)

Here is a first draft of our idea of a Common Business Entity Model (where 
'Business' means it's not a 'Data' Entity Relationship Model assignable to a 
database schema, it's just objects found in the real world - the database 
schema might look totally different):
http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/wiki/images/4/45/DSFS-BusinessEntityModel.jpg

Unfortunately it's not fully translated yet, but I hope you understand our 
intention. The blue rectangles are objects that are part of the base 
framework standard. The red ones are specific to plug-ins, using the blue 
ones to inherit from, or just defining new ones.

At the end the blue ones are those who all tools should be able to convert 
their own Model into. That's the way the different tools can interchange 
their data.

Does this make sense?

Cheers
Marc