[Ag Meinungsfindungstool] The way forward according to technicians (Marc of Meinungsfindungstool)

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Marc said:
> (4) Then we analyse this with PM Delta. The outcome of the analysis
> should be a better understanding of how the different designs are
> related to each other. How big or small the common ground is, to
> build upon. What are the aspects that separate and connect us.
> 
> (5) Then we focus on the things that connect us rather than separate us!

   Compare the technical designs
     |
     V
   Identify the common ground (4)
     |
     V
   Focus on the common ground (5)
     .
     .

> What do you think?

I'm not sure, yet.  These appear to be practical steps as requested
(thanks), but I can't picture what you mean by "common ground".  Can
you give a few specific examples, just to make it clear?

Mike


marc said:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> That is a very good idea!
> 
> In the following I would like to refer to current approaches regarding your 
> list (http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Overplan/soc/des-22) as "designs".
> 
> We at AG MFT currently prepare a questionnaire to follow up with a survey 
> where any of this designs could give their feedback in a quite structured 
> form.
> 
> For this purpose we are customizing an existing tool called "PM Delta" to 
> contain our specific set of questions. This tool is able to analyse the 
> survey and provide some sophisticated reports.
> 
> To be honest, til now we just thought about rough categorizations of the 
> designs, but maybe we could enhance this with a structure that makes it 
> easier to compare the different overplans? But for the beginning we think 
> it 
> might be easier to give specific categories to choose from.
> 
> Maybe we could proceed as following:
> 
> (1) AG MFT is close to finish a first draft of the questionary for the 
> survey.
> 
> (2) As soon as we have completed our proposal, we are going to put it for 
> discussion on the metagov list. Here we could shape the categories and 
> questions together.
> 
> (3) After gaining a specific degree of agreement, we try to get as many 
> designs as possible to participate.
> 
> (4) Then we analyse this with PM Delta. The outcome of the analysis should 
> be a better understanding of how the different designs are related to each 
> other. How big or small the common ground is, to build upon. What are the 
> aspects that separate and connect us.
> 
> (5) Then we focus on the things that connect us rather than separate us!
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers
> Marc