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

[Michael Allan <mike AT zelea.com>]

Hi Marc,

> Does this make sense?

Yes, I think so.  I wrote it up and probably made some mistakes.
Please check: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Overplan/c/WtG

   CoP
    |
   SoP
    |     (CoP) Compare the overplans
   ToP    (SoP) Select the best overplan
    |     (ToP) Track discussion of the overplan
   XoP    (XoP) Execute the overplan
    |
   CtD    (CtD) Compare the technical designs
    |     (IdG) Identify the common ground
   IdG    (WtG) Work together on the common ground
    |     (LeG) Leverage the common ground
   WtG
    |
   LeG

Do you want ToP in there?  (See link for details.)  I figure that's
the most doubtful one because we never talked about it specifically.
I'm not 100% sure about *any* of the CoP-XoP steps, so please look
carefully at those.  Are there any you'd remove?  Or add, or re-order?

I'll help with WtG, of course.  And I'll help with the preceding steps
(CtD, IdG) where I reasonably can.  But I'm doubtful we'll get much
help there from other designers.  It's hard to get anyone to take
seriously the idea of cooperation.

Mike


marc said:
> 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