ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.piratenpartei.de
Betreff: Ag-meinungsfindungstool mailing list
Listenarchiv
Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation
Chronologisch Thread
- From: Alexander Praetorius <citizen AT serapath.de>
- To: AG Meinungsfindungstool <ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.piratenpartei.de>
- Subject: Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:30:21 +0200
- List-archive: <https://service.piratenpartei.de/pipermail/ag-meinungsfindungstool>
- List-id: <ag-meinungsfindungstool.lists.piratenpartei.de>
@Slash, Marc
What about the next International E-Democracy Talk?
Which presentations are next?
What date is god for Professor Karsten Weihe? (fundiert-entscheiden.de)
I've also a developer of (probble.de)
DerThomas wanted to present his concept.
And we still need Votorola explained on an audio record.
-
alex
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:
Marc said:
> I totally agree with Slash!
Please, I don't understand your answer. Do you think that opinion
_expression_ (as I have described it) will be an essential part (among
other essential parts) of the platform you are designing?
Michael
Slash said:
> 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
Marc said:
> I totally agree with Slash!
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: Start AT metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
***********************************************
Alexander Praetorius
Rappstraße 13
D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
[skype] alexander.praetorius
[mail] citizen AT serapath.de
***********************************************
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, (fortgesetzt)
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Thomas von der Elbe, 24.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Alexander Praetorius, 24.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Pietro Speroni di Fenizio, 24.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Michael Allan, 25.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Michael Allan, 27.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Slash, 27.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Michael Allan, 28.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to splitopinion formation, marc, 28.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Michael Allan, 29.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Alexander Praetorius, 24.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Thomas von der Elbe, 24.10.2012
- Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] Requirements in regard to split opinion formation, Alexander Praetorius, 27.10.2012
Archiv bereitgestellt durch MHonArc 2.6.19.