Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] [MG] List of primary voting projects

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Roger Eaton said:
> Yes, then InterMix is definitely a primary system.  The point is to
> generate consensus while maintaining diversity.

Thanks for explaining Roger, I've added InterMix to the list:
http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:List_of_primary_voting_projects

> Generally you can change your approval and interest ratings.  Even during a
> decision period, you can change your ratings for candidate messages.
> However for candidate messages in completed decision periods, you cannot
> change your ratings.  Results for decison periods are frozen when the
> period ends.
> 
> Candidate messages are always the root message of a thread within a
> decision period.  Replies to candidate messages are not limited and even
> after the end of a decision period, you can still add new replies.  Also
> you can continue to change your evaluation of replies indefinitely.
> 
> I am glad to see CiviQ and GenAssem and all the primary systems on your
> list and feel it an excellent idea to try vote mirroring, though clearly it
> is going to be tough, since each primary system has its own approach.

In one sense, it's easy to do vote translations.  They only have to be
best effort, because a best effort at a vote image is always a better
reflection of reality than no image at all.

Please consider joining us in our submission:
https://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/free-range-voting/
If you agree, we can add InterMix to the list of providers.  If any of
the judges are hovering, it might push us over the top. :-)

> On a separate issue, I discussed with Flemming the question of html vs text
> email and we have added giving the participant the option of receiving text
> or html to our list of things to do.  It's down the list, tho.  As far as
> we know, almost everyone (clearly yourself excepted) uses an email reader
> that handles html as a matter of course.

IMHO, it's better to send text alone, or multi-part.  That's what most
everyone does.  It's easier and generally it's better to follow
standards unless there's a good reason to deviate.

> ...  It's down the list, tho.  As far as we know, almost everyone
> (clearly yourself excepted) uses an email reader that handles html
> as a matter of course.

Many technical folks (admins, devs) who spend big time in text
terminals use Mutt.  It does not render HTML.  http://www.mutt.org/
None of the TUI-only clients render HTML:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_email_clients

> Thanks again, Mike.   If I am passing through Toronto, I will look you up
> for sure.

Thanks Roger, I'd be pleased to meet you!

Mike


> -- Roger Eaton
> +1 415 933 0153
> intermix.org
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com> wrote:
> 
> > Roger Eaton said:
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by micro-decision.  The discussion might
> > > be about nuclear disarmament and the decision period might be on the
> > > question of adopting a nuclear convention.  Theoretically there is
> > > no limit to the number of people who can participate.  Not exactly a
> > > micro issue, but clearly InterMix is not a yes-no voting system.  It
> > > is more a way of creating a consensus building collective stream of
> > > consciousness.
> >
> > "Micro" here refers not to the scale of participation, but rather to
> > the granularity of issue.  A full nuclear convention is definitely a
> > macro-decision.  For more on micro vs. macro-scale granularity, please
> > see these discussions:
> >
> > https://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/genassem-public-debate-of-legislation-and-caselaw-in-a-way-that-just-makes-sense/
> >
> > https://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/civiq-shows-structure-in-natural-opinion-flow-and-visualises-opinion-change-in-public-deliberations/
> >
> > If InterMix can be used to express approval or disapproval of
> > macro-decisions *before* those decisions are made, and thus serve to
> > guide those decisions, then it's a primary system.  But I still have a
> > question that relates to this.  May I freely change my expression of
> > approval after submitting it?  Or what are the restrictions?
> >
> > And do these on-the-fly changes of approval work differently in
> > different contexts.  Say for ordinary messages vs. messages in
> > decision periods?
> >
> > Mike