Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Audio protocol of todays cooperation meeting with Michael Allan from Votorola

[Slash <pirate_slash AT yahoo.com>]

Yeah, totally. And the thing is this:
This voting deadline feature is just as essential for LQFB as
the liquid delegation feature; so, if you operate one of these features
out, than you don't have LQFB anymore.
That's why LQFB is a resolution system; the abovementioned features
are not just a side feature, they're at its core.

The question really is:
Should change of an official positon be constantly possible, or
just 70 days or so after a position was approved and so made official ?
I'm not so sure about this; I'm smelling some problems if constant
change would be possible, which all could be sum up under the
term 'lack of planning certainty' ...
and I also have my doubts, if constant change and making a resolution
in one single tool is possible at all, I guess that both needs together
build up a predetermined breaking point, so that you just can't avoid
things to fall appart in a discussion system and a resolution system, which
has a voting deadline feature... you could sum it up in one tool, of 
course,
but you always would have these two parts... that's what I fear...

Greetings,
/ aka Oliver

Alexander Praetorius schrieb:

> Hi Slash,
>
> Positioning vs. Resolution
> Thats your issue, right?
> Where Positioning is a never ending iteration of constantly refining 
> positions,
>
> while Resolution has a fixed date X after which things are set in stone.
>
> At first it looks as a difference between both exists, but it doesnt.
> Resolution is just a "special case" of Positioning.
> In Resolution, you have a fixed time intervall with wich changes are 
> beeing allowed (e.g. 4 years)
> In Positioning this time is theoretically shrinked to infinitessimal 
> short intervalls (e.g. constantly changable)
> You could now increase the interval of "Positioning" to daily or weekly 
> or monthly or all 4 years.
>
> How often should we allow the official program of the pirate party to 
> change, now that we have a permanent general assembly???
> Weekly? Monthly? Twice per Year, as in the past? Maybe daily? ...why not 
> constantly??? :-)
> Every time "majorities" change and stay that way for duration of Y, the 
> official program changes.
>
> ...Thus, people may support positions in the party program and an 
> initiative to vote an a new position will put that position in the 
> program, with all voters attached. In the future, voters may remove their 
> votes and attach it to something else (maybe a new position).
>
> In that case, POSITIONING has already changed, but what you call REVISION 
> will only change, once the period/intervall has been used up (e.g. after 
> 4 years) and the changed Positioning will become effective.
>
> Did i understand your issue?
> what do u think?
>
> Slash schrieb:
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > today Marc had a cooperation meeting with Michael Allan from Votorola;
> > here is the link to the audio protocol: http://youtu.be/LHwqT4j6sLo
> >
> > Well, now that you are informed about it, we can use this thread here
> > as a feedback channel. :)
> >
> > ==============================__========================
> >
> > My2cents:
> >
> > I'm very happy that essentially we're aiming in the same direction and
> > both want to cooperate. Actually there is just one spot in the 
> > cooperation
> > meeting where I felt the need to pipe up, and that was the spot
> > where Marc linked Votorola with Liquid Feedback and said that Liquid
> > Feedback is going to be a plug-in for d!sco.
> >
> > Well, before coming to my question let me first sum up from my point of
> > view how I see the spectrum of discussion process:
> > Having seen many many discussion tools I take the view that one can
> > distinguish the discussion process in 3 phases.
> >
> > *phase 1* - dealing with an open question (example 'How fight sexism?'):
> > This phase is very open minded, maybe even like brain storming, and
> > mainly consists of adding ideas and ones subjective opinion as a reply
> > to the open question
> >
> > *phase 2* - dealing with closed questions (example 'Should we go outside 
> > tomorrow?')
> > In this phase we deal with Yes-or-No-questions; in this phase the ideas
> > of the aforementioned phase are evaluated;
> > 'is idea/core statement/thesis X correct ?' - this is what is evaluated 
> > with
> > gathering and exchange of pro and contra arguments to this closed 
> > question
> >
> > *phase 3* - positioning
> > based on the aforementioned phases in this phase positions to the open
> > questions are build; this is not so much about arguments, but rather
> > making the different positions visible, consensus finding, negotiating,
> > finding majorities (often supported by a voting system), etc.
> > So, at this spot you form or make decisions in form of building and
> > optimizing positions which hopefully - thanks to the aforementioned
> > phases - are outstandingly profound and sophisticated and
> > principally able to reach much popularity.
> >
> > *And now comes the point:*
> > To make a decision - so, "phase 3 - positioning" - is not the same as
> > to make a resolution.
> > Both are very similar, no doubt, but there is a decisive difference 
> > between
> > them: Positioning forms and illustrates collective positions within a 
> > group
> > to a certain issue; these positions can change and develop all the time,
> > they are not cut in stone. This phase - like phase 2 and 1 - is an
> > open end phase.
> > Making a resolution, however, is the complete opposite regarding this
> > aspect; making a resolution means 'you can vote now for the upcoming
> > thirty days and then the results are standing and one position is 
> > official'.
> > Positioning is creating a draft law, which can be a never-ending process,
> > but making a resolution is making this draft law official on a certain 
> > day X.
> >
> > If an edemocracy tool incorporates open-end positioning, it's a 
> > discussion system,
> > if an edemocracy tool incorporates... well closed-end positioning - so
> > with a fix date and then some position is official - it's a resolution 
> > system.
> >
> > LQFB is not a discussion system, because it has voting deadlines;
> > in LQFB you have a 'new phase' for a couple of days, then a
> > 'discussion phase' (which is not worth its name), then a 'frozen phase'
> > where the positions can't be edited any more, and then a
> > 'voting phase' and after that some position is cut in stone.
> >
> > Well and now my question to you, Michael Allan :D :
> > Are there voting time deadlines in Votorola ? Or is this positioning with
> > all the voting stuff in Votorola a never-ending process, which of course
> > is becoming more and more consolidated in the course of the time but
> > theoretically never is fixed?
> >
> > Well, it's obvious what I'm aiming at with this question; to my
> > understanding, which can be wrong, Votorola is a discussion system and
> > LQFB is a resolution system and I just felt the need to sort this out a 
> > bit
> > more extendedly ^^ ...
> >
> > And the second thing is...
> > I do see resolution systems as something which needs to be interconnected
> > with discussion systems - just how I see discussion systems as something
> > which needs to be interconnected with information systems - but I don't
> > see resolution systems to be that intensively interconnected with
> > discussion systems as a plug-in within our basic idea of d!sco 
> > https://wiki.piratenpartei.de/__AG_Meinungsfindungstool/__Ergebnisse/DieGrundidee 
> > https://wiki.piratenpartei.de/AG_Meinungsfindungstool/Ergebnisse/DieGrundidee.
> >
> > 2 interesting links to you, Michael :
> > 1. This user case study here 
> > https://docs.google.com/__presentation/d/1xulOzojrwx-__Xcs3rYSwU0kftSgSyDHrWzb0VzGf4B__TQ/pub?start=false&loop=false&__delayms=60000 
> > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xulOzojrwx-Xcs3rYSwU0kftSgSyDHrWzb0VzGf4BTQ/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=60000 
> > shows, what all the theory of d!sco means
> > in practice.
> > Some words as this user case study is in german:
> > In this user case study you see a certain level of information in form
> > of some ideas to a certain open question, one of these ideas has started
> > up an argumentation. And this level of information is viewed through
> > different discussion methods or lets say plug-ins within d!sco.
> > So you always see the same discussion contributions, but depending
> > on the plug-in they always are displayed differently.
> > So you see this interoperability; the user can easily switch from one
> > discussion method to another, no data is lost, user has free tool choice,
> > and the tools are cooperating and so - with joined forces - it comes
> > much easier to them to build the decisive critical mass of users and 
> > data.
> >
> > 2. There is a really wicked wicked tool, which would fabulously go hand
> > in hand with Votorola within the d!sco sphere; it's called textrapic and
> > basically it works like this:
> > Each user contributes his own opinion in form of a blog posting, so that
> > by the input of lots of users lots of blog postings are gathered.
> > Then an algorhythm condenses all the blog postings to a summary of
> > 2 to 3 pages, so that one doesn't has to read thousands of pages in
> > order to see, what the whole group basically thinks of a certain issue.
> > So, you see actually it just has the same focus like Votorola but
> > the difference is that the consensus finding within 'phase 3 - 
> > positioning'
> > is done by a machine instead of humans.
> > If you would pair up you'd eliminate your weaknesses and so would be
> > a super team ^^ ...
> > I can imagine this very well; textrapic could contribute an
> > automatically generated position, and Votorola could give this
> > position the necessary edge by users reflecting the automatically
> > generated position and contribution alternative positions, which are
> > more pointed.
> >
> > Here's an explanation video to textrapic; it you'd like to have a
> > translation, we surely can arrange this :) :
> > http://youtu.be/5TWFINh8rxI
> >
> > Greetings,
> > / aka Oliver
> >
> > --
> > Ag-meinungsfindungstool mailing list
> > Ag-meinungsfindungstool AT lists.__piratenpartei.de 
> > http://mailto:Ag-meinungsfindungstool%5Bat%5Dlists.piratenpartei.de
> > https://service.piratenpartei.__de/listinfo/ag-__meinungsfindungstool 
> > https://service.piratenpartei.de/listinfo/ag-meinungsfindungstool
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------Best 
> Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> ***********************************************
> Alexander Praetorius
> Rappstraße 13
> D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main
> Germany
> *[skype] *alexander.praetorius
> *[mail] *citizen[at]serapath.de 
> http://mailto:alexander.praetorius%5Bat%5Dserapath.de
> *[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
> ***********************************************