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

[Frauke Mattfeldt <mattfeldt AT karten-verlag.de>]

I think all these things are just bla bla as long as there is no common 
concept and no framework, which means: no common vision (theoretically) 
and regarding the technical side: no framework or ontology which mirrors 
this vision.
All the stuff here is just bla bla.

Most of the tools which are currently developed are more or less focused 
on specialized fields of application.
This is ok. But if so, there is no need to bring them all together.

The first question must be: in which case is it necessary to bring 
different tools together and why?

If you can answer this question, we can go on.

If you want to have different tools which fit into one framework / 
ontology, you need to develope the ontology first. Afterwards you can 
develope different tools which adapt to that framework.

But:
For me it seems to be more dangerous to have one big database with an 
API and many tools which are connected to this centralized database, 
than to have one (open source) tool which can be run on different 
servers with many databases and exchange the data between the different 
servers via an API on every of these servers.

If you once have this kind of network, it would be possible as well to 
create different tools -> they just need a suitable API in this case.

Anyhow, the framework is the first thing which has to be developed. As 
long as the framework is not there, you can just try to merge different 
tools regarding their functionalities if they complement one another.



Am 05.03.2013 14:38, schrieb Michael Allan:
> 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