ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.piratenpartei.de
Betreff: Ag-meinungsfindungstool mailing list
Listenarchiv
- From: Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>
- To: ODDI <oddi AT forums.e-democracy.org>
- Cc: AG Meinungsfindungstool <ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.piratenpartei.de>, Start/Metagov <start AT metagovernment.org>
- Subject: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] The problem of divorced consensus practices
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:03:32 -0400
- List-archive: <https://service.piratenpartei.de/pipermail/ag-meinungsfindungstool>
- List-id: <ag-meinungsfindungstool.lists.piratenpartei.de>
Hi folks, (cc Metagov, AG Meinungsfindungstool)
I joined the ODDI working group because I suspect I have a personal
concern with what you're working on. Specifically my concern involves
the problem of "split consensus", as my friend Thomas von der Elbe has
called it, or "divorced consensus practices" as I refer to it here.
But I'm not quite sure I've got you pegged correctly, so please help
me; I have a few questions.
(i). Will your proposal for a common "network infrastructure", as John
Spady has called it, accomodate (among other facilities) a facility of
formal opinion expression? To explain what I mean by "formal opinion
expression", imagine a potential participant approaches the working
group and asks about the proposed infrastructure. She (or he) asks,
* Where do I express my own opinion on this infrastructure?
* Where can I see the individual opinions of others?
* Where can I see the overall shape of collective opinion that
we're forming together?
* Where can I see how my own efforts are helping to shape it?
She is asking for a facility of formal opinion expression, as I call
it; one that reveals a "picture" having these basic elements:
(1) my opinion (one dot)
.... |
.......... V
.............. .... -+
....................... | dissensus, or
...................... | budding counter
............. .... | consensus here
.......... -+
...
| |
+---------------+
rough consensus
over here
http://zelea.com/var/tmp-public/oddi/div-consensus-1.txt
(if the diagram is distorted and your mail client lacks a
fixed-width font, please visit the temporary link above)
Here we see individual opinion (one dot), collective opinion (whole
picture) and some sense of how they interrelate. This is a very crude
illustration - no tool is likely to provide a visualization quite like
this, and a good one would reveal much more information - but these
are the *essential kinds* of information that are revealed. Will this
type of facility be accomodated in the infrastructure you propose?
(ii). Are groups and practitioners to have a free choice of formal
opinion expression tools (along with other important tools), such that
each may choose the tool that best suits their (or his, or her)
particular needs?
(iii). Despite the resulting diversity of practices (from ii), will
you attempt to formally interlink the local "islands" of opinion
expression (again, I focus just on that aspect) into some kind of
larger whole? I try to illustrate what I mean:
(2) ....
.......... O
.............. ....
.......................
......................
............. ....
..........
...
+-----+ +-----+
| | | |
| T1 | | T2 |
| | | |
+-|-|-+ +-|-|-+
+---------|-|------|-|---+
| | | | | |
| |
| N |
| |
+------------------------+
O Opinion in formation
T Competing tools
N Network infrastructure,
common standards, and such
http://zelea.com/var/tmp-public/oddi/div-consensus-2.txt
T1 and T2 are alternative tools for the purpose of opinion expression
(just to focus on that formal category). A group may choose T1 or T2
for this purpose, but regardless of the choice (say T2), the group may
nevertheless remain part of a single, larger opinion forming process
(O above). So the group might work together (in some sense) with
other groups who make different technical choices here (say T1). This
freedom of choice is made possible by the common network
infrastructure (N) into which the tools are "plugged". Does the ODDI
hope to support such broad, formal interaction of opinion forming
practices (among other important D & D practices)?
Best to all,
--
Michael Allan
Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/
- [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] The problem of divorced consensus practices, Michael Allan, 26.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [ODDI] The problem of divorced consensus practices, Steven Clift, 26.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] The problem of divorced consensus practices, Slash, 26.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [ODDI] The problem of divorced consensus practices, Vic Desotelle, 26.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] The problem of divorced consensus practices, Michael Allan, 27.10.2012
Archiv bereitgestellt durch MHonArc 2.6.19.