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

[Thomas von der Elbe <ThomasvonderElbe AT gmx.de>]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 2:50, Ed Pastore wrote:
> It looks like we are starting to come to an understanding, which is
> wonderful.

Yes, looks like it! :-)

Now, how should we proceed? I propose, we wait another 7 days for 
possible objections and in case there are none, we go ahead with the 
described steps.

What do you think?

Thomas



> I just want to add a couple of historical contexts:
>
> First, it has been my experience with this project that every time we
> try to impose structure, we hit heavy obstacles. While every time we try
> to open to organic, flexible, mutable solutions, we have ideological
> breakthroughs that allow for some fantastic new possibilities. I don't
> think Michael's proposal is a perfect solution in itself, but I think it
> is absolutely on the right track... because it is not stuck in a "track." :)
>
> Second, I just want to point out that we had a precursor to this
> conversation back in, wow, in 2009! Matías started encoding that
> discussion onto the wiki, and the Michael and Thomas expanded it out,
> particularly with the free range voting concept:
> http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Standardization
>
> Looks like that page could use an update. :)
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Ronald Grindle wrote:
>
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > I am uneasy at roaming in theories, this is why I prefer thinking in
> > actual solutions.* But it doesn’t mean that I consider my solutions
> > the one and only possible, it’s just the one I can think of that works
> > (best). And, yes, of course, it's very likely that with the millions
> > of smart brains on this planet, my thoughts have been already thought.
> >
> > For your question: I prefer solution B, although I would like to add
> > that I think the required data do not pose a too high hurdle for the
> > individual solutions (technical problems are the easiest to fix). I
> > think it’s to the advantage for the individual solution, which they
> > are free to waive.
> >
> > And the solution is very simple; if the documents do not provide these
> > data, I doubt that they convey a sound information source.
> >
> > And also: it seems to me, that there is one point people don't
> > understand: fragmentation leads to disempowerment. Once we stop
> > working towards a common solution but rather promote rival
> > solutions/points of views/ideologies etc. we all together lose.
> >
> > My favorite example is the Tower of Babylon**. How did Jahwe stop the
> > building of the tower? With thunderbolt and lightning? By sending evil
> > diseases? No, by mixing their languages! As soon as the Babylonian
> > where hindered in their communication Jahwe's monopoly of divinity was
> > safe again:
> >
> > " The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they
> > have begun to do this, *then nothing they plan to do will be
> > impossible for them*. Come, let us go down and confuse their language
> > so they will not understand each other.”
> > http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+11%3A1-9&version=NIV
> >
> > *”The difference between theory and practice is in practice bigger
> > than in theory.”
> > ** Not that I believe it ever actually happened. I am an agnostic.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Ronald
> >
> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> >
> > Ronald D. Grindle
> > __________________
> > Tel: +49 (0)89-43573610
> > Mobil: +49 (0)177-3775162
> > E-Mail: ronald AT grindle.de <mailto:ronald AT grindle.de>
> > Am 13.11.2012 09:47, schrieb Michael Allan:
> > > 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. *
> > >
> > > 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,
> > >
> > >    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.
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > >
> > >     * 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
> > >
> > >       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.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > Ronald Grindle said:
> > > > Hello Mike,
> > > >
> > > > "So the documents (and popular support) cannot be defragmented without 
> > > > defragmenting the tools."
> > > >
> > > > No, not necessarily.
> > > >
> > > > 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, 
> > > > for instance:
> > > >
> > > > UID
> > > > Title
> > > > Document Type
> > > > Document Status
> > > > Area
> > > > Topic
> > > > Owner
> > > > URL [where to find the document]
> > > > (Author)
> > > > (Keywords)
> > > >
> > > > UID is a unique ID, to be able to unmistakably identify the document.
> > > > Attributes in brackets () would be optional. The possible entries for "Document Type" and "Document Status" 
> > > > would be pre-defined. The possible entries for "Area" and "Topic" should be fed by a common database 
> > > > (editable by everyone), to avoid "fragmentation by naming".
> > > >
> > > > To consolidate the data to an overview on the documents there are two 
> > > > solution I can think of:
> > > >
> > > > 1. All tools report their documents to a central server, that provides an 
> > > > overview of all documents, by calling a common interface. (e.g. a 
> > > > http-request)
> > > >
> > > > 2. A search tool that crawls through all tools and collects the data. This 
> > > > solution has, at first glance three downsides:
> > > > - The tools must be searchable (like a web page).
> > > > - The documents must provide the meta data proposed above as standardized 
> > > > meta-tags.
> > > > - The tools will be loaded with requests, every time a search is triggered.
> > > >
> > > > The consolidation of supporting votes could work the same, but is a more
> > > > touchy matter, as this is a potential field for cheating and therefore
> > > > requires special measures to ensure trust.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > > Ronald
> > > marc said:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I strongly agree with Ronald, that there should be a kind of 'standardized
> > > > meta data' that all tools (plug-ins to the framework) are working on, or at
> > > > least, are able to convert their data back and forth.
> > > >
> > > > So what about eDialogus
> > > > http://www.imc.com.gr/ontologies/eDialogos/consensus/#overview   as a
> > > > starting point for a unique ontology for discussion systems?
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Merkbefreiter (marc)
> > > >
> > > > P.S. Because there is already a 'Mark' on the list, you can safely refer to
> > > > me as 'Merkbefreiter' ;o)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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