Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] The problem of divorced consensus practices

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

I totally agree with Slash!

-----Original Message----- 
From: Slash
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 3:00 PM
To: ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.piratenpartei.de
Subject: Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool]The problem of divorced consensus 
practices


I've got 2 things to say to your concerns, Michael:

1. Your concerns feel like a dejavu to me; when ThomasE joined our
monday-meetings in mumble for the first time, we had the same
discussion. He had the same concerns than you and end of the story
is, that he is still with us, which is pretty revealing ^^ ...

2. It's a question of what plug-ins are integrated into the framework:
If amoung the plug-ins is at least one plug-in, that enables "divorced
consensus practices", then yes, the discussion platform does so.
You know, particularly regarding discussion splitting we had a long
discussion in the past; not everyone was happy with that step.
And why ? Because they had something different in their mind and
felt the threat, that their idea gets out-sorted by focussing on or
integration of discussion splitting.
We solved this conflict - which in case we all would try to bring us
to work on just one single MFT certainly would not stay the only
conflict - by this seperation of basic structure and detail structure,
or let's say framework + plug-ins.
So, there is room for pretty much all thinkable discussion methods,
no matter if it incorporates splitting, full text, text devision based
discussing, argument mapping, grouping, single input, and so on...

I guess there would be less questions and misunderstandings, if
the english translation of our basic idea would be ready; plz be patient,
it's in the process of being made:
https://meinungsfindungstool.piratenpad.de/Anforderungsanalyse-Grundidee-translation

Well actually I see that indeed it is ready, but not neatly condenced
to a full-and-only english text; just read from line 84.
The colored lines are the translation of the uncolored german lines after
that.

Greeting,
/ aka Oliver

Michael Allan schrieb:

> 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 mailing list
Ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.piratenpartei.de
https://service.piratenpartei.de/listinfo/ag-meinungsfindungstool