Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] (proposal) Metagov as a technical plug-in framework

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

Michael Allan wrote:
> Ronald and Marc, (cc AG Meinungsfindungstool)
> I roughly understand the solution (or counter-solution) you propose,
> except in one regard.  So I have a question at the end.
> Ronald said:
> > No, not necessarily [defragmenting the tools]...  This is my
> > proposal, how to outbalance the fragmentation of documents...  We
> > agree on a set of meta data, that the tools should support per
> > document...
> This sounds like "defragmented" tools to me.  It's an example of that.
> The tools are no longer disconnected fragments because they share two
> connections: first the agreed "meta data" standard, and second, the
> "consolidated overview" into which they are pushed or pulled. *

That's true. At the end our working group proposes a standardized meta data 
schema to interchange data between different solutions or tools. Furthermore 
there is not a "consolidated overview" but defined interfaces that can be 
queried by the tool A on tool B to retrieve specific data.

> I think we both agree (and Marc agrees) that the tools must somehow
> (in this meaning) be defragmented.  You offer a specific solution,
> while we (Conseo, Thomas and I) do not.  This raises the question of
> how your solution relates to what we're proposing in this thread.  The
> answer hinges on how you address the problem of fragmented documents
> that are *non-compliant* with your agreed meta-data standard.  Either:
>
>   A. All documents must implement the agreed meta-data standard.
>      Non-compliant documents are eliminated.  So fragmentation is
>      solved by your solution alone.  Or,

they can not benefit from the possibilities cooperation would offer them.
So yes, if the tools wants to benefit, it needs to be able to migrate the 
data back and forth, but they will not neccessarily be eliminated ;o)

>   B. Non-compliant documents may implement other, rival solutions.  So
>      fragmentation is *not* solved by your solution alone.  You depend
>      on the existence of other solutions.

That's how it works today.
There are dozen of tools around that all implement their own proprietary 
standards.

> If you prefer A, then your approach to the larger problem is at odds
> with and incompatible with what we propose in this thread. **   If you
> prefer B, then it is compatible.  Which do you prefer, A or B?

I would prefer A. But B is even a good starting point that's worth proving 
the goal of adding benefit to those who participate.
If B fail, A will fail also.

>    * Your solution is not entirely new, ofc.  Mark Murphy proposed
>      something similar in 2007.  xDebate formats (not yet published)
>      is a Semantic HTML (POSH) schemata for federated debate on
>      political issues.  We discussed it with him in 2009.  See:
>
> http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2009-February/001195.html
>
>      The broader context of that discussion was his 2008 essay in
>      Rebooting America: The "killer app" of public participation:
>      http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/node/5499

You are right. There is already a lot out there! We need to connect even 
more ;o)

>      Later in 2009, Thomas was chasing the fragmentation problem
>      himself and uncovered a different solution, one that nobody ever
>      thought of before.  Vote mirroring works on documents (and other
>      objects) via their popular support, not their content.  But note:
>
>   ** All we propose is a neutral tool switch that is blind to specific
>      solutions.  Like the Internet, it is open to all.

For me B provides the most benefit to the developers and providers of 
specific tools and solutions.
And A provides the most benefit to the users and content contributors of the 
tools.

What audience would you like to attract?

Cheers
marc