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

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Hi Slash, and others (there's a question at bottom for AG MFT)

(cc Votorola, Metagov)

> 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?

Right, there are no timing rules.  A poll (issue) opens when the first
vote is cast, and it never closes.  There are no final results.

> 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 ^^ ...

Yes, Votorola is designed to support discussions.  Specifically it's
designed to support discussions that might eventually lead to a
decision (what I call "primary voting").  LiquidFeedback could also be
used for primary voting, but it might not be the best choice.
Apparently it wasn't designed for that purpose.

> 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.

I agree.  An informal and indirect connection is probably best.  We
want the reason inherent in the discussions to guide the force of the
decision; never the reverse.  Maybe the best design is:

  (1) Person P participates in discussion.

      Elsewhere and later:

  (2) Person P participates in decision.

Here the connection across space and time is person P.  Even if the
decision were continuous as Alex suggests (rare situation), then P's
interaction with the decision system would still be separate in space
and time from the discussion.  Primary voting is useful here because a
primary vote can easily be translated (by P) into a decisive vote.

> 2 interesting links to you, Michael :
> 1. This user case study here 
> 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.

Thank you for explaining.  I understand your words, but not the German
slides.  You're developing component tools for formal argumentation.
I guess your discussion system (2) is largely specialized for the
purpose of formal argumentation.
http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/wiki/images/7/72/MFT_BigPicture_v01.jpg

> 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

Thank you.  Each group (branch or tree) already has a consensus text
downstream at its root.  But it's possible that textrapic would be
useful in consensus bridging across trees.
http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/consensus_bridging


Folks, I'm surprised to learn that AG MFT provides no facility to
express agreement at the level of whole issues, such as texts
(macro-voting).  Maybe I was misled by the name qKonsens, which looks
like "consensus" in English.  Or maybe by my assumption that Daniel's
project (which I think does allow for macro-consensus) was part of
your effort.  Does AG MFT *want* a primary macro-voting facility?

If you've been following the other thread, then you know I have a
larger plan: (1) use Disco as a transport layer for a mirroring
inter-network; (2) use the mirroring inter-network to support open
electoral primaries across toolsets and across parties; and (3) use
the sex-appeal of that project (taking down the party system) to pull
in further development resources.  To get that started, we'd need at
least one other person to commit serious time.  Either:

 (a) A second experienced developer.  He would add the mirroring
     support and (if necessary) electoral support to the other voting
     software (non-Votorola).

     Or,

 (b) An experienced project manager.  While I was modifying both
     Votorola and the other software (maybe LiquidFeedback), the
     manager would scout for a second developer and generally keep
     things moving forward.

Unfortunately, I couldn't work without this second person.  I thought
you already had another macro-voting developer (a), or I would not
have taken up so much of your time with all these threads.  But maybe
we can still move forward.  Please let me know what you think.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Slash said:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 2 interesting links to you, Michael :
> 1. This user case study here 
> 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