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

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Here's the other possible outcome (that I know of) to the unstable
situation of diagram 3, aside from a de facto monopoly (A.1).
http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-October/005110.html
http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-October/005111.html

Thomas von der Elbe first described this outcome in the mechanism of
vote mirroring.  Vote mirroring is an instance of the more general
solution of "hacked inter-networking", which I describe here.


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

            +-----+  +-----+
            |     |  |     |            +-----+
            | T1  |  | T2  |----- H ----|     |
            |     |  |     |            | T3  |
            +-|-|-+  +-|-|-+            |     |
    +---------|-|------|-|---+          +-|-|-+
    |         | |      | |   |        +---|-|---------+       +---
    |                        |        |   | |         |       |
    |    S1                  |        |        S2     |       |
    |                        |        |               |       |
    +------------------------+        +---------------+       +---


     M  Opinion in formation
     T  Competing tools
     S  Common standards, practices,
        databases, and so forth
     H  Ad hoc, hacked data sharing


   http://zelea.com/var/tmp-public/agm/split-opinion-B.1.txt


Opinion expression tools T2 and T3 interconnect and exchange data
across a hacked connection (H).  Opinion formations and processes that
were formerly split (M1 and M2 in diagram 3) are now joined (M).  When
a user expresses his/her individual opinion using T2, for example, it
now shows up in the visualizations of *both* T2 and T3, e.g. as one
dot.  So users of T2 and T3 have a better picture of the overall shape
of opinion as it is forming.

Note how this solves the two causal moments of the problem, instead of
merely caving in to them.  Again, the two causal moments are:

  (i) The overall shape of opinion (M1 or M2) as revealed by each of
      the tools is incomplete and less likely to be correct.
      Therefore the utility of all the tools is diminished.

      This is solved.  The tools reveal the full information.

 (ii) The tools of the more popular platform have, all else being
      equal, a greater utility and attractiveness to users.  Knowledge
      of this, and efforts to tip an unstable balance one way or the
      other, distort the development process and poison the relations
      among developers and other contributors.

      This is solved.  The tools of the least popular platform have
      (all else being equal) exactly the same utility and
      attractiveness to users as those of the most popular platform.
      Users with special needs or preferences cannot be disadvantaged.
      Nor can innovative tools be held back by force.  Even when
      opposed by the stakeholders of the dominant platform, they can
      still attract any number of users.

This is also good engineering.  The hacked connection (H) does not
depend on prior abstractions or generalizations such as standards,
practices, databases, and so forth (S).  Good engineers know it's "not
a good idea to build an abstraction and force something into it", as
Marc puts it.  "The abstraction should naturally evolve from the
special to the general." *  So the next step in the evolution might
see the ad hoc connection, having already proven itself, precipitate a
new standard:


  (B.2)         ....
             ..........           M     ...
           ..............   ....    ..........
          .....................................
          .......................   ..........
           .............   ....          ..
             ..........                ......
                ...                     ......
                                          ..

            +-----+  +-----+
            |     |  |     |            +-----+
            | T1  |  | T2  |            |     |
            |     |  |     |----+       | T3  |
            +-|-|-+  +-|-|-+    |  +----|     |
    +---------|-|------|-|---+  |  |    +-|-|-+
    |         | |      | |   |  |  |  +---|-|---------+       +---
    |                        |  |  |  |   | |         |       |
    |    S1                  |  |  |  |        S2     |       |
    |                      +----|--|----+             |       |
    +----------------------|    |  |    |-------------+       +---
                           |         S3 |
                           +------------+

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


   http://zelea.com/var/tmp-public/agm/split-opinion-B.2.txt


Now we have a new, proven standard (S3) that other platforms can use
to join the inter-network.  But they are not forced to use S3, nor any
other standard.  They can always join via a hacked connection (H) of
their own.  So freedom of choice is respected.

We're in a kind of race.  Some of us are working toward this outcome
(B.1) while others are working toward A.1.  I don't know who's ahead
yet, but I know what's slowing down the B.1 crew.  You can see it in
the diagram.  We have T3 sailing, but we can't find T2.  We see dozens
of potential T2's floating around, but none is headed on a B.1 course.
Can anyone help us?


 * 
http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-October/005042.html

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/