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

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

Mike said:
> Exactly.  If two technical designs specify the same overplan, then
> common ground between them is at least *indicated*.  But whether
> "overplan" belongs in your definition of "common ground", I can't say.
> Maybe it's better to leave it out for now.  So here's our latest
> summary of the way forward, as I think you see it:
>
>    Compare the technical designs
>      |
>      V
>
>    Identify the common ground.
>        * Here "ground" means a design pattern that's employed; or a
>          requirement that must be met in order to implement a design;
>          or a problem that the design would solve.
>      |
>      V
>
>    Focus on the common ground

Yes. I would like to proceed like this.

> (a) What does "focus" mean here, Marc?  Suppose the previous step has
> identified the common ground between two designs as being (say) a
> shared requirement.  Wouldn't both teams of designers *already* be
> focused on that shared requirement?  After all, by definition, their
> designs cannot run without it.
>
> I think all designers are already focused on *all* their design
> grounds, which includes their *common* design grounds.  Maybe you mean
> something like "work together" here, instead of "focus"?

Yes. I mean work together towards or based on this common ground. We might 
find out a common ground between all designs that is very very generic like 
"Make the World a Better Place" or "Improve Online Deliberation", but we 
might also have more detailed common ground between just a few of the 
designs that could also collaborate to join forces in their special area.

My point here is, that currently there is less to no cooperation between the 
designs. IMHO that is wast of resources.

> (b) Then what?  After the design teams work together (or whatever) on
> their common ground, what's the next step forward, if any?  Or is the
> next step unknown at this stage, i.e. something to be filled in later?

Next step might be to write down our epic story to base some marketing 
strategy on it to get more attention from the people outside of 
metagovernment. Working together based on the common ground also would give 
us more power towards potential groups of interests. We would no longer be 
lone fighters, but we would be a community sharing the same "defined" goals.

> > If we could agree on this [way forward], a next step might be to
> > discuss the questionnaire for the survey that we are currently
> > drafting at AG MFT?
>
> (c) Before agreeing and moving forward in this way, would it make
> sense to look at other, alternative ways of moving forward?  Or is
> that unnecessary?  Or would it come later?

Of course. What I outlined here (with your invaluable help) is just a 
proposal to be discussed.

At the end my intention is to get more cooperation between the different 
designs rather than rivalry, because I hope that with more cooperation we 
could move on much faster. For example, within AG MFT it was a big success 
to focus on the common ground by defining the least common denominator. 
After we did this, we had much more progress than before.

Does this make sense?

Cheers
Marc


-----Original Message----- 
From: Michael Allan
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 2:04 AM
To: start AT metagovernment.org ; Piraten AG Meinungsfindungstool
Subject: [MG] The way forward according to technicians (Marc of 
Meinungsfindungstool)

Thanks for answering, Marc.  I have three questions (a-c):

Marc said:
> ... if I understand you right, there is not just one, but an
> unlimited number of overplans around. Everyone could have it's own
> overplan. That would make it hard to compare the designs against, to
> find the common ground, I guess. ...  But if we would have found one
> single overplan by consenus, than we could use this to identify
> common ground as you suggested ...

Exactly.  If two technical designs specify the same overplan, then
common ground between them is at least *indicated*.  But whether
"overplan" belongs in your definition of "common ground", I can't say.
Maybe it's better to leave it out for now.  So here's our latest
summary of the way forward, as I think you see it:

  Compare the technical designs
    |
    V

  Identify the common ground.
      * Here "ground" means a design pattern that's employed; or a
        requirement that must be met in order to implement a design;
        or a problem that the design would solve.
    |
    V

  Focus on the common ground


(a) What does "focus" mean here, Marc?  Suppose the previous step has
identified the common ground between two designs as being (say) a
shared requirement.  Wouldn't both teams of designers *already* be
focused on that shared requirement?  After all, by definition, their
designs cannot run without it.

I think all designers are already focused on *all* their design
grounds, which includes their *common* design grounds.  Maybe you mean
something like "work together" here, instead of "focus"?

(b) Then what?  After the design teams work together (or whatever) on
their common ground, what's the next step forward, if any?  Or is the
next step unknown at this stage, i.e. something to be filled in later?

> If we could agree on this [way forward], a next step might be to
> discuss the questionnaire for the survey that we are currently
> drafting at AG MFT?

(c) Before agreeing and moving forward in this way, would it make
sense to look at other, alternative ways of moving forward?  Or is
that unnecessary?  Or would it come later?

Mike

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: Start AT metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: 
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org