Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] (SMVcon) Developers cooperating with AG Meinungsfindungstool

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Marc and Alex,

Marc said:
> So the overall question to be answered from your side is: Do you
> want to participate in such kind of standardized ontology to enable
> easy data exchange with any participating tool?
> 
> I would like to welcome you. What do you think?

Thank you.  It depends on how you answer my previous question.  As I
point out, unless we address the network effects at the root of the
problem, then (regardless of the ontology) all users will be forced
onto the same platform.  Users and citizens will be robbed not only of
their freedom, but also of the opportunity to be the authors of that
freedom.  How can we cooperate to prevent that?

Alex said:
> Maybe this is the way to bring forward "vote mirroring"

That's one possible answer.  I don't know if that's Marc's answer.
It's often difficult for competitors to understand each other.  But we
must be clear on this issue.  A platform cannot succeed without users.
There are two ways to obtain those users:

  (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus levelling
      the playing field and enabling the users to range freely from
      platform to platform.

      This is the right way.

  (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own
      platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.

      This is harmful and unecessary, and therefore wrong.

These are the only ways.  There are no grey areas in between.  If our
choice is not (1), then it is (2), and no responsible engineer will
cooperate with us.  Instead he'll point to the danger and warn us not
to proceed.

What should we do?

Mike


marc said:
> Hi Micheal,
> 
> Currently the working group AG MFT tries to establish several kind of 
> prototypes of a) one concrete methodology (qkonsens), b) concrete 
> portal/web 
> site (probble.de) and c) concrete Common Discussion Standard based on an 
> ontology and a web api (disco.codeplex.com).
> 
> As you put it, all our work is part of #2 (Discussion System) within the 
> overall decision-making process. But nevertheless, I don't think that our 
> working group wants to be competitor to any other project in this area. Our 
> aim is rather to cooperate with as much projects as possible.
> 
> Unfortunately the progress of our working group based on our volunteer work 
> is not as fast as I would like to see it. For a better progress our working 
> group devided into the following four teams:
> a) Ontology Definition Team (ODT) - deals with the ontology specification.
> b) Prototype Core Team (PCT) - deals with the imlementation of a database 
> schema based on the ontology and a web api to access the data in a restful 
> way.
> c) Prototype Plug-In Team )PPT) - deals with the implementation of concrete 
> discussion methodologies.
> d) Public Releations Team (PRT) - deals with our 'public relations' ;o)
> 
> My individual next tasks are in terms of the PCT a) to create a conceptual 
> description of our d!sco prototype on CodePlex and b) creating a first 
> implementation of the Web API.
> 
> As soon as this is established, I would like to invite you to brainstorm 
> about possible collaboration. From our point of view this is a question of 
> how to make the data available for all other interested parties. Because 
> our 
> goal is to define a common discussion ontologie, inspired by and 
> particularly based on eDialogus 
> (http://www.imc.com.gr/ontologies/eDialogos/consensus/).
> 
> So the overall question to be answered from your side is: Do you want to 
> participate in such kind of standardized ontology to enable easy data 
> exchange with any participating tool?
> 
> I would like to welcome you. What do you think?
> 
> Cheers
> marc
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Michael Allan
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:19 AM
> To: AG Meinungsfindungstool
> Cc: Votorola ; Start/Metagov ; AG Liquid Democracy
> Subject: Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] (SMVcon) Developers cooperating 
> withAG Meinungsfindungstool
> 
> Thanks for offering, Marc.  We both feel the same.
> 
> To answer your question, our purpose is to coordinate plans of action
> (i.e. to achieve public autonomy) by the method of discussion aimed at
> mutual understanding and consensus (i.e. public opinion).  In your
> diagram, this translates to "position forming" (Standpunktbildung)
> based on a discussion system.
> 
> > http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/wiki/images/7/72/MFT_BigPicture_v01.jpg
> > Where would you locate Votorola inside this picture?
> 
> So we're sitting at #2.  That makes us competitors.  We (Votorolans,
> Outcasters) have been at this for years, where you (AGM) are just
> getting started.  But I welcome your offer to cooperate, because I
> fear that otherwise we might do harm to people.  If either of our
> platforms were ever to establish itself as a de-facto monopoly that
> suppresses other choices through network effects, then users and
> citizens would be robbed not only of their freedom, but also of the
> opportunity to be the authors of that freedom.
> 
> How can we cooperate to prevent that?
> 
> Mike