Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] Invitation to join the Online Dialogue and Deliberation Infrastructure Working Group

[Mark Frischmuth <mark AT democracylab.org>]

Hi everyone,

I see great opportunities for collaboration between our respective groups.  In the short term I've got to focus on unpacking boxes (I just moved from Portland to Seattle last weekend) and trying to build consensus within the ODDI group about what we're trying to accomplish.  The result of that consensus will be a proposal for submission to NCDD for a Catalyst Award.  I'll share that proposal as it's taking shape.

I'd love to write in more detail now, but I'm being pulled in too many different directions.  More to come!

Cheers,
Mark

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:

> ... The only place where we differ from your description of the NCDD

> crowd is the last three words of your last sentence above:
> "informing decision makers."  When a community has come together,
> found common ground, worked on the issues, and built a
> consensus... it seems superfluous and downright wrong for them to
> then cede the process to some "authority" to make the decision for
> them. They've just made the decision, what purpose does that other
> person serve?

(aside) Even here there may be confluence.  Consider that political
decision makers are generally in ignorance of what to do.  But often
those decision makers are (humbly) ourselves.  This is true in the
case of elections.  It also true in the case of Metagov.  Our solution
is to come together as ordinary folks (not decision makers) and try to
reach agreement on what *ought* to be done.  Then later, (as decision
makers) we decide what *will* be done.  So the only difference between
Mark and Ed is the decision makers.  Mark pictures smiling politicians
sitting behind desks (as in the Democracy Lab cartoon), while Ed sees
ordinary folks like us.  But the method (people, practices and tools)
for informing those decision makers (whoever they are) is the same in
both cases.

Also note, the Meinungsfindungstool working group agrees with this
basic distinction.  They factor decision making out of scope.  They
picture separate tools for opinion forming (Meinungsfindung) and
decision making.

Mike

Ed Pastore said:
> Hi, Mark. I just wanted to comment on what you describe as the differences between ODDI and Metagov, since in two out of three cases, I think they are more similarities than differences. Is there a chance of closer collaboration?
>
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Mark Frischmuth wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I've been following conversations on this list with quite a bit of interest.  Many of you know me from my past participation here, thought I've been listening more than talking as of late.
> >
> > I'll talk a little bit about the ODDI (Online Dialogue and Deliberation Infrastructure) list referenced here, and how it's similar and different from Metagovernment.
> >
> > First, the differences:
> > - Primarily non-technical.  I believe that the majority of folks on the ODDI list are not software developers.  They believe in the idea but don't possess the skills to code themselves (like me).  They're primarily practitioners in public engagement.  A major aim of the group is to translate the best practices from real world public engagement into online tools and platforms that can be used to enhance in-person public engagement efforts.
>
> I think most people on the Metagov list are non-technical. The technical people and the technical discussions tend to come to the fore since they are readily-tackled problems, but they're not the core focus. The development of software tools to enable collaborative governance is a focus, but that does not necessarily constrain us to the technical aspects of that software.
>
> > - More about engagement than voting.  Much of the conversation on the MG list is around 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.
>
> I think Metagov is about voting and, well I wouldn't say engagement, but I would say community-building. The only place where we differ from your description of the NCDD crowd is the last three words of your last sentence above: "informing decision makers." When a community has come together, found common ground, worked on the issues, and built a consensus... it seems superfluous and downright wrong for them to then cede the process to some "authority" to make the decision for them. They've just made the decision, what purpose does that other person serve?
>
> So I wouldn't say Metagov is focused on voting and making binding decisions. Those are just necessary corollaries of the focus of putting the whole deliberation process in the hands of the people it affects: the people.
>
> > - Short term focus on the Catalyst Awards. NCDD is sponsoring two Catalyst Awards: http://ncdd.org/catalyst-awards, providing $10k of funding to collaborative projects with the potential to have significant impact on the field of dialogue and deliberation.  The ODDI group was formed with the specific intent of submitting a collaborative proposal in response to this opportunity.  Hopefully this is just the beginning of our work together, but it seemed prudent to start with a tangible short-term focus.
>
> So Metagov isn't directly involved in this, but it seems like apart from this focus on the award, there is a lot of room for collaboration and idea sharing, no?

_______________________________________________
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