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

["marc" <marc AT merkstduwas.de>]

Hi Slash,

Thank you very much for uploading:
> today Marc had a cooperation meeting with Michael Allan from Votorola;
> here is the link to the audio protocol: http://youtu.be/LHwqT4j6sLo

You wrote:
> 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.

Okay, maybe that's something do be discussed and maybe currently more wrong 
than right. But I had in mind what Semon said about the new implementation 
he is starting right now. So maybe we need to differentiate the discussion 
system and the resolution system parts in LQFB first.

Your following phase description might be a good starting point to 
"categorise" d!sco plugins?!

> 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.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Greetings,
> / aka Oliver

Cheers
Marc