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

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Marc said:
> Sorry, I can't cite your ascii ;o)

I hope it's readable in your mail reader.  Just in case, if anyone has
trouble reading the diagram, please see the list archive:
http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-October/005050.html
https://service.piratenpartei.de/pipermail/ag-meinungsfindungstool/2012-October/001470.html

This is diagram (1), same as last time:


  (1)        ....
          ..........  M
        ..............   ....
       .......................
       ......................
        .............   ....
          ..........
             ...


            +-----+  +-----+
            |     |  |     |
            | T1  |  | T2  |
            |     |  |     |
            +-|-|-+  +-|-|-+
    +---------|-|------|-|---+
    |         | |      | |   |
    |                        |
    |    S                   |
    |                        |
    +------------------------+


     M  Opinion in formation
     T  Competing tools
     S  Common standards, practices,
        databases, and so forth


> 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)

Okay, sounds good.  So let's assume that both T1 and T2 are compliant
plug-ins (i.e compliant with S).  This means the user can easily
switch back and forth.  This is the ideal, I agree.

Now suppose T1 and T2 are voting tools.  There are different kinds of
tools, of course, each with its own competing instances.  But I want
to look specifically at voting tools.  I see that voting is part of
the model under the category of "assessment", if I understand.
http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/wiki/images/4/45/DSFS-BusinessEntityModel.jpg
(I opened a separate thread to discuss model details)

Suppose further that these two voting tools (T1 and T2) are designed
to reveal and express the shape of opinion (M) as it forms.  Whenever
a user wants to know the general pattern of consensus and dissensus,
or related details, he/she can pick up his favourite voting tool (say
T2) and read the information from it.

How do you feel about this?  Are you comfortable with voting being
used for this purpose?  (Myself, I feel it's very important to reveal
the shape of opinion as it emerges.  And I think active, continuous
voting is generally the best approach for this.)

How do others in the group feel?  I wish I could ask my question in
German, because I'm interested in hearing the views of anyone who
wants to speak.

Michael


marc said:
> 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