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

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Vic, Steven, Mark and Tim,

Thank you for answering.  I promise not to take up much of your time
if you feel that my concerns are out of scope.


Vic Desotelle said:
> I like the effort you've made of laying out of your thinking. ...

I think we're confronted with a looming problem, so I try to be clear
about what I see, and where.  (Hopefully this is the right place, or I
will have to apologize for making so much noise!)

Re scaling: I'm interested in large networks for consensus, dissensus,
mutual understanding, that kind of thing.  If there are discussions
along these lines, please think of inviting me.  mike AT zelea.com


Steven Clift said:
> ... the frame (as I've perceived it) is primarily citizen
> dialogue/deliberation within the frame of public *input* into
> government/community.

That was my understanding, too.  And also that it's not about "picking
one or the best hybrid in-person/online model", as you say.  In fact,
part of my concern is the danger of such an unwelcome restriction
arising unintentionally in the network infrastructure being mooted
here.  But only if it supported the particular kind of D&D facility
that I describe (formal opinion expression).  Mark and Tim too may
have mistaken me on this question, so I try to clarify below.


Mark Frischmuth (seconded by Tim Bonnemann) said: *
> [ODDI/NCDD is m]ore about engagement...  [not about] various forms
> of voting, and how online communities can take binding decisions on
> issues of concern.  I believe this is very important, but it's not
> the primary focus of the NCDD crowd, which is more concerned with
> creating community and civil dialogue, gaining understanding of
> various points of view, and informing decision makers.

You reply here to my report that the ODDI is "another nascent group
for the purpose of cross-project standards and infrastructure"
comparable to Outcast and AG Meinungsfindungstool.  But those two are
oriented 180 degrees about-face from what you imply.  Emphatically,
they are not for the purpose of binding decision or direct action, but
rather for discussion that is aimed at agreement and/or mutual
understanding.  So I think you mistook my meaning.

Maybe you were thinking about something more like CrunchGov, which you
also posted about.  CrunchGov is for "crowdsourcing the best ideas on
pending legislation".  Participants "vote up or down each suggestion"
and thus determine the content of the crowdsourced legislative bill.
So here we have buttons being pushed in order to influence an outcome.
If we think of the "frame of public *input*" (to use Steven's
expression) as a ship sailing toward a destination, then CrunchGov is
the equivalent of the engine room, where the order of the day is,
"Push, push, push!"

Along with such a mechanism (important to a ship), imagine we also
have a chart room for maps, plus a view from the bridge for close
navigation (or stormy weather).  Here I mean a facility that shows
large-scale patterns of agreement and disagreement, consensus and
dissensus, that arise within the broader population of participants
and participating groups, together with markup, projections and
overlays of related information.  Participants would use this facility
(among others) to inform their ongoing discussions.  (These
discussions would, in turn, be responsible (like the officer of the
watch) for guiding the ship to its proper destination.)

This is the facility I call "formal opinion expression".  Having
clarified my meaning, do you still think it is likely to fall outside
the scope of the ODDI network?  Or that an open choice of alternative
tools and practices for this purpose would be unimportant?  (I was
thinking we'd want to support this facility, among other important
facilities, and allow a maximum of localized choice in the tools and
practices.  However, it is quite possible that we could depend instead
upon a separate, external network infrastructure for this purpose.)

Or am I simply being out of order in thinking this is a good time to
raise the issue of a looming problem posed by this facility?  (But it
seems to me unwise to wait till after we win the award money, when the
crowds are rushing in.  The problem itself has to do with crowds and
network effects, as I will explain (if I don't instead have to
apologize for taking up your time unecessarily).)

Thank you again for answering,

Michael


 * 
http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-October/005091.html