Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
Dear group members,
In a phone conversation Gale and me agreed that I should create a
systematization of the discusion about the definition of TOP to see which
parts are essentially important to us.
Since we agreed on two things (if I understood right) about the way how should
the definition be achieved: (1) Strategic planning (Where we are now?, Where
we want to be? How we plan to get there?) and (2) Autopoietic (OpenSource)
approach through editing and adding content to the definition we have on the
wiki (http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP).
Also we agreed (correct me if I am wrong) on the answers to the first two
questions of strategic planning (Where we are now and Where we want to be)
where the answers were that we are in a position where we don’t have a good
definition of TOP and we want a definition behind which we will stand 100%.
This answers are only part I know, but let me elaborate further. Now, lets
see how we can achieve the stated in the first two questions (e.g. get the
answer to the third question).
First let me try to state which essential parts came into play during
disscussion.
In the threads “First goal: Definition of
TOP” (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/4a54bfb6539f7049/#),
“Definition of
TOP” (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/2601aa9e132fd542/#),
“What can 4 of us actually do? / What does TOP mean to
you?” (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418?tvc=1)
and “Definition of TOP – need to finish our
goal” (http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_thread/thread/303d810256bedea6/36be706d548fff27#36be706d548fff27)
the following issues came to attention which I try to systemize and on which
should be decided:
I. Document elements:
-———————————
ii. Gaining some political importance and attract attention
iii. Change the way information in political processes is shared
iv. Change the way people can enter in politics
v. How politics should be held on the internet, or using the internet
vi. Set of rules person/organsation had to carry out if it wants to act in TOP manner
vii. Transparent action includes publishing, explaining and documenting appropriate documents of its vision, mission and goal statements of action including plans and strategies on how to accomplish them. This documents also include discussion templates, results, conclusions etc.
viii. The main goal of transparent action is a elaborated, total and integral decision making process transparent and available to the public.
ix. A person, organization or option should have a public forum where the public can comment the persons, organizations or options action. This forum must have a fully non censored public part which is continuously and in a line on-line available. Information on this forum should be public and allways available for later references e.g. it should be replicable.
x. Open action is such action on which the public has influence i.e. action which can be changed by the public under the condition that the result of such a change is open again.
xi. Open action gives every person, option or organization the opportunity of process involvement.
xii. If some person, option or organization wants to act open, it has to insure continuous contact and discussion with the public. This is in accordance with the concept of a forum where the public has the opportunity to discus and where every single individual is involved through a clearly distinguishable criteria.
xiii. Every document created through transparent and public action is thus openstanding.
xiv. Every person, option or organization should take every meaningful critique, suggestion, comment and idea of the public, discus it and, if they find it usefull, include it an the appropriate document.
xv. Public action is such action which is available to the public, allways and at will and which is oriented towards the public.
xvi. If a person, option or organization wants to act public it has to insure continuous public availability of information about their action.
xvii. Public available information is information which is publicly available in a clearly articulated form. This information should be available to everyone interested in it over the Internet. This information can be available through other mediae but the Internet is obligatory.
xviii. Any official action should be documented in the appropriate document.
xix. A person, option or organization is TOP and can thus become a certificate if its action is transparent, open and public according to the definition of TOP and has an elaborated integral decision making process.
xx. TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business.
xxi. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.
xxii. TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public officials or on public matters among private individuals.
xxiii. Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.
xxv. Transparent means that every decision and/or project fullfiled by a political organization, individual or initiative should be fully documented so every interested individual can follow the reasons any decision was made.Transparent means to me that every decision and/or project fullfiled by a political organization, individual or initiative should be fully documented so every interested individual can follow the reasons any decision was made.
xxvi. Open means open in the sense of OpenSource. Every project and/or decision fullfiled by a political organization, individual and/or initiative should be open for participation for every interested individual. This means that every person who wants to can and should participate.
xxvii. Public means that every decision and/or project fullfiled by a political organization, individual and/or initiative should be public available and oriented towards the public.
xxviii. TOP are principles that define how politics should evolve in the coming times. They apply on the processes themselves, the electronic processes. It’s a basis of democracy on the net.
xxix. There is one test which would validate the application of transparency => replicability. Anybody should be able to copy in real time a political process that applies the transparency principles. Replicability is a test proving this state of fact.
xxx. Open participation is to allow anybody to enter in the process. No barrier to entry.
xxxi. There are exceptions to TOP:
xxxii. There is one test that could be useful: everything recorded has to be made public.
xxxiii. All important decisions must be fully transparent. The whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders.
xxxiv. There shall be no prohibition of public employees from having private discussion on any public matter.
xxxv. All government recorded information should be made public.
xxxvi. All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be replicated in real time
xxxvii. Transparent, open and public principles supplement each other in defining the fundamental standards of a genuinely democratic organization.
xxxviii. A transparent organization must ensure full, accurate, and timely disclosure of actions and information. Its actions and their justifications must remain intelligible and clear. Users are able to fully audit any decision, information, process or other feature of the organization. It therefore implies keeping a record of discussions, decisions, documents and any other supporting material in an accessible format. An elaborated, total and integral decision making process must be defined in accordance with TOP principles. Practically, one who doesn’t know anything about the organization should be able to gain full knowledge of it, to the point that the organization and its information could be duplicated should one wish to do so.
xxxix. An open organization, process, action or otherwise can be changed by any person or entity under the condition that the result of such a change remains open. Open action gives every person or entity the opportunity to get involved in the process and propose alterations. This implies that any open system must be opensource. Furthermore, discussions, processes, deliberations, documents and any other feature must remain openstanding.
xl. A public organization, its processes, information and actions must be accessible without censorship or restrictions to any member of the public. Accessibility must be ensured at all times over the internet. Information must be organized so as to allow quick and effective access. Public information should be available in a clearly articulated form so as to be accessible to non-specialists. An uncensored public forum must be made available for comments on the organization itself. This forum must be maintained so that it remains transparent, open and public according to the definitions in this document.
xli. An entity is TOP and can thus become a certificate if it demonstrates it functions in accordance with transparent, open and public principles according to this document and has an elaborated integral decision making process.
II. Document structure:
-———————————-
i. Different aspects of TOP (political, sociological, psychological,
organizational, philosophical etc.)
ii. Three essential parts of TOP transparency, openness and publicity.
III. Important issues to consider:
ii. A good definition of TOP is an important start. Decisionmaking should be the next step.
iii. The definition should guide our future actions
iv. All of us should stand behind the definition 100%
v. The categories of transparent, open and public action are interconnected, they supplement each other since none of them embraces the whole field needed by this idea
vi. There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet.
vii. Are there any exceptions to the TOP Principles? Perhaps: 1 The Secrecy of the Vote; 2 National security and state secrets; and 3 Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public. For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet. In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens’ Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.
viii. Informal consultations could be very harmful to the later stages since what’s concluded and decided in such closed halls could put a totally wrong agenda when it comes to public opinion and participation. Shortly spoken: The privilege of problem formulae should not be kept by the inner circles.
ix. We should set up standards that can easily distinct initiatives that enable public participation from those that do not.
x. articulation of individuals who set some policies. More info we have, more people can support such policies with no fear of loosing of public support. If there are some “mystery” issues that individuals do not find appropriate due to any reason to public, the way to realize them is putting their word, their reputation on probation. So, it is up to the public should they legitimate those mystery ones, or those fully transparent.
xi. Silence majority concept leads to schizophrenia of power, making the whole process being declarative, not real one. If we want to create system be fully legitimated, it needs to mediate the power as clear as possible in order to preserve its status. If it is not being done, power disharmony tends to destroy legitimacy of such a system.
xii. TOP as a framework for political action. TOP should be the reason that will allow good people to behave good and reward them for being good (by saying good I mean it in the broadest sense of the word).
xiii. Decision making for setting policies has to be TOP. What about running operational processes, here comes the question. I suppose it is up to the body. If the body is some public object, we might not care about what is being done inside it if it does not want to be runned publicly. If it wants, I suppose we should support it also.
xiv. TOP must disable opportunistic behavior in order to succeed.
xv. An important issue about information control is that it is decentralized, dissabling creation of the centers that are obviously superior to those who are not informed.
xvi. The idea of an infrastructure which would allow “closing inside openness”. To “close” organizations/individuals/initiatives (oii’s) there should be something like a licence which would allow the use of TOP information only by TOP certified oii’s. Thus the infrastructure consists of a licence, a standard and a certificate as elaborated some time ago on this group. In this way TOP oii’s would be in some way protected against nonTOP oii’s. How to articulate such a standard and such a licence is another issue. If I remember well once as I was analyzing GPL licences I saw that people of the FSF are often willing to support the development of new licenses, so maybe we should contact them and ask for support?
xvii. A criteria to determine if an organization is strongly transparent => if it publishes enough data so as to be able to setup a duplicate organization of itself. This is particularly useful in democratic settings, where a duplicability criteria would help in order to audit any process and its data.
xviii. One average person should be able to verify is some organization is TOP or not
xix. Public, why should anybody on this planet have any right on a TOP organization just because he is part of the “public”? Why not limit it to “its public”? (or participants)
As you can see I tried to shorten down the whole communication about the
definition of TOP concentrating on Elements, Structure and Issues to be
considered (if I missed any important thing please bring it to my attention).
The definition we have (the one on the wiki) is still not satisfactory (even
Serge did a great job in editing it) since some issues weren’t considered and
are still not included in the definition. Maybe a good way to approach the
definition would be to imagine todays politicians and political organizations
(in a broad sense) and try to see if this definition excludes non-democratic
and non-TOP entities. IMHO it doesn’t. Another issue which hasn’t been
included are concrete steps which an organization or individual must make in
order to be TOP.
Since only a little has been proposed about structure I think this should be
our first focus, e.g. how should the definition look like and what should it
cover?
If we create structure we can easily fill the elements of the definition in.
One proposal is to create structure according to different aspects of TOP
e.g. political, sociological, psychological, organizational, philosophical
etc.), maybe this is a start. Or we can focus on the structure we have now
(Introduction, Transparent, Open, Public, Conclusion, References). Any other
proposals?
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
+1
That is a really awesome job you did. Congrats, Markus!
It took me a while to read all of lines. Though, I hope I will find some more time to work on this post, as long as it asks for rather serious approach. Good to see things moving on!
ATB,
Gale
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Thanks for the flowers. So what do you and the others think about defining structure first? I had somthing in mind like:
And then to define transparency, openess and publicity in every aspect and give a guide what to do (from every aspect) to be TOP. In this way we wouldn’t explain TOP by adding apples and oranges but have a nice formal framework.
Best regards
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 09:46:54AM -0700, Markus Schatten wrote:
1. Introduction2. Philosophical aspect3. Social aspect4. Political aspect5. Organizational aspect6. Informational aspect7. Psychological aspect8. Conclusion9. ReferencesThat’s rather large, does it require all that?
What about:
And then to define transparency, openess and publicity in every aspectand give a guide what to do (from every aspect) to be TOP. In this waywe wouldn’t explain TOP by adding apples and oranges but have a niceformal framework.
Cool by me.
But we need to advance with the definition. TOP => Transparent and Open to its Public, or Transparent and Open to its Participants.
(The “its” would be important to me. Much important than giving rights to every human on the planet.)
Data flow could then be a coin with two sides:
Participants (or public) can:
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Markus and members of the group,
Most points seem valid, but I hope you won’t take offense if I point out it’s not a very engaging read. I do believe that the medium is (half) the message, and that for TOP to have any kind of traction with the public, its message must be absolutely as concise and clear as possible.
As you point out, and rightly so, my definition of TOP has elements missing. Surely some elements would need to be added, and others removed . However, expanding the level of detail beyond what consitutes the core of TOP for this introductory statement would be a mistake for two main reasons:
Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the same thing. I’ll add that transparency is similar too. In my understanding, the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency), openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It is interesting to notice that controlling either information, system infrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methods of hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems. So how about creating a dedicated reference document for each of the three founding TOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and not try to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies?
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP
best regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
At 11:33 PM 9/18/2006, Serge wrote:
Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the samething. I’ll add that transparency is similar too.Indeed. “Transparency” is equivalent to “open,” in some meanings. Each term, however, does approach the matter from a different perspective. “Transparent” is about access to information. “Open” is about freedom of expression, it seems, though it also refers to transparency. And “Public” implies that there are not relevant access restrictions. That is, if access is restricted, it does not restrict access to those who have a legitimate need to know and a legitimate right to participate.
In my understanding,the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency),openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It isinteresting to notice that controlling either information, systeminfrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methodsof hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems. So how aboutcreating a dedicated reference document for each of the three foundingTOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and nottry to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies?
I do agree that a simple document explaining what TOP is about is necessary, and that simple document should have an introduction, perhaps a splash page, which is extremely simple. And, hopefully, engaging.
I’ll just add one comment: an organization may be TOP, as it seems we more or less agree on, but still be effectively closed if necessary information is buried in the noise, and if access to the decision-making structures, i.e., providing input, is likewise suffering from conflicting noise. Indeed, a mindless TOP, i.e., totally open, no restrictions, is not going to work on a large scale. It can work fine on a small scale, and indeed, it often works quite well. Take that complete openness and increase the scale, the TOP principles lose their effect. You can’t find the information you need because it is buried in thousands of irrelevant posts. You can’t get heard because you post amid those thousands, and nobody with the necessary knowledge and inclination to respond notices it.
Frankly, I think DP is necessary before true large-scale TOP organizations will be practical. FA/DP provides all the TOP principles (though it does depend somewhat on the details of an organization, but, as we have discussed, power structures may be a different story. Still, DP can apply there, and a parallel FA/DP organization to whatever power structure can effectively make the combination TOP. That is the theory, and that is the BeyondPolitics vision.
The corporate power structure, which has proxy democracy at its base, is not open to the public, though aspects of it may be public record. However, an FA/DP organization of shareholders, if it allows public participation — and there is no reason not to, any private information can be shared in closed meetings, which any caucus has the right to hold — would make the combination TOP. And if you were the owner of a corporation, wouldn’t you want to know how the public perceives the corporation, and wouldn’t you want it to be open to suggestions from customers, and to potential lawful cooperation with competitors?
FAs advise, they do not control.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 11:33 PM 9/18/2006, Serge wrote:Indeed.Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the samething. I’ll add that transparency is similar too.Indeed. “Transparency” is equivalent to “open,” in some meanings.Each term, however, does approach the matter from a differentperspective. “Transparent” is about access to information.
“Open” isabout freedom of expression, it seems, though it also refers totransparency.
I could add, this act is calling for participation. In this imperfect world and hazed, this is actually the only way for gaining legitimation of any transparent political process.
What I want to say? We still live in age of myth. So, if you enter politics as TOP politican, you have to admit your weakest chain actually. This actually means you are much more vulnerable than those who are closed. What is more important, if I see your non-perfection i could think that one I do not know might be at least 10 times better than you referencing to myths that are shared in political life. But, if I enable TOP communication, by comparison you can get much better sense of reality and acknowledge somebody on the level of reality, not myth.
That is the reason I believe T in political life has no chance without OP. So, the whole new paradigm, or nothing.
And “Public” implies that there are not relevant accessrestrictions. That is, if access is restricted, it does not restrictaccess to those who have a legitimate need to know and a legitimateright to participate.
Yes. Transparent to public, open to public. Clear realtionship that makes misinterpretations much harder to be done.
In my understanding,the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency),openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It isinteresting to notice that controlling either information, systeminfrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methodsof hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems.
Great notice Serge.
So how aboutcreating a dedicated reference document for each of the three foundingTOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and nottry to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies?
I am not pro openness as long as it is widelly interpreted at many very regularly contradicting manners. Another thins is that transparency and participation that is probably functional essence of openness are not the same thing at all. You can be open, yet you can be highly non transparent. And vice versa also. I suppose I do not have to give examples, eventhough, to me, it is most easily noticed in human charactes and words we like to attach to it.
I do agree that a simple document explaining what TOP is about isnecessary, and that simple document should have an introduction,perhaps a splash page, which is extremely simple. And, hopefully, engaging.I’ll just add one comment: an organization may be TOP, as it seems wemore or less agree on, but still be effectively closed if necessaryinformation is buried in the noise, and if access to thedecision-making structures, i.e., providing input, is likewisesuffering from conflicting noise.
This is what I find be as second stage. First stage could be only things such as public forums of political bodies that are known /regulations in what would that mean I find be needed: some party can not be validated as top if it has forum for which nobodies know/, second stage could be exact process such as DP algorithm used for delegating public person in some structure. Or you can go for exact info, exact post that has to be considered by officials.
Indeed, a mindless TOP, i.e.,totally open, no restrictions, is not going to work on a large scale.It can work fine on a small scale, and indeed, it often works quitewell. Take that complete openness and increase the scale, the TOPprinciples lose their effect. You can’t find the information you needbecause it is buried in thousands of irrelevant posts.
This is about filters and their legitimation, which is hard bottom up process. Yet, we can say it is trruly democratic process.
Frankly, I think DP is necessary before true large-scale TOPorganizations will be practical. FA/DP provides all the TOPprinciples (though it does depend somewhat on the details of anorganization, but, as we have discussed, power structures may be adifferent story. Still, DP can apply there, and a parallel FA/DPorganization to whatever power structure can effectively make the*combination* TOP. That is the theory, and that is the BeyondPolitics vision.
I have to notice one problem up there. If you want to matter, you have to make essential difference and base your political ideology on such. When you make difference, you can get people involved in that, if they recognise themselves in such ideology.
If you do not make difference, but call everybody, due to lack of clear difference, you can not set good ideology on it. You can not get people involved in that. And you have to offer to them something if you want to rock.
So, FAs do exist. Formal DPs do not exist and there is no current need for them, which is sad. More precisely, there are several groups I attain to and I can be called as passive DP among them. If I want to be active DP, I have to have people who would be interested in such thing. And there is no people who are actually interested in it. Regular behind the curtain, non transparent, non open,. non public networking is the process that still rules in this very moment in political life. So I can not offer them this service withouht more clear vision. That is the reason I got oriented to TOP much more than to networking, which DP actually is (OK, plus delegation statement that does not mean much in this very moment), if I undertand it correctly.
ATB,
Gale
The corporate power structure, which has proxy democracy at its base,is not open to the public, though aspects of it may be public record.However, an FA/DP organization of shareholders, if it allows publicparticipation — and there is no reason not to, any privateinformation can be shared in closed meetings, which any caucus hasthe right to hold — would make the combination TOP. And if youwere the owner of a corporation, wouldn’t you want to know how thepublic perceives the corporation, and wouldn’t you want it to be opento suggestions from customers, and to potential lawful cooperationwith competitors?FAs advise, they do not control.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hey,
First of all I agree with Gale that defining a system as TOP although slightly redundant, leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation that “open system” would, and remains concise enough to be acceptable.
Secondly, is it right to say that we agree that the aim of this group is for a TOP system allowing for such things as proxy voting, signal amplification over noise (filters), etc to be implemented freely and easily by any TOP organization wanting to?
If yes, why don’t we start try and get more developpers involved to build on leparlement, defining the specifics of the software, and testing it all the while through using leparlement as a platform for discussion/decision/vote??
Regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+3
New discussion
Answer
+1
Though, what can we do precisely about that?
ATB,
Gale
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hey Gale,
when you ask what we can do about that, I take “that” to mean “If yes, why don’t we start try and get more developpers involved to build on leparlement….”. The answer I would have is pretty straightforward.
For starters we need an accessible and compelling statement of intention (TOP definition). We also would need to have a proposal at hand for what the system should be able of doing (Emmanuel do you have such a definition document?). Then again it’s not like it needs to be all slick and pretty since these documents are openstanding, it is more to provide a reasonable amount of information and direction for people to catch up on the idea and decide if they are interested and want to participate. Once the starting elements are there, it’s all about publicity. Talk on message boards forum, talk with political bloggers, email your address book about it, whatever you can think of to spread the word….
IMO it’s not exactly easy to do, but it’s really not that hard either, all it takes is to actually get the ball rolling.
Regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:23:35AM -0000, Serge wrote:
We also would need to have a proposal at hand for what the systemshould be able of doing (Emmanuel do you have such a definitiondocument?). Then again it’s not like it needs to be all slick andpretty since these documents are openstanding, it is more to provide areasonable amount of information and direction for people to catch upon the idea and decide if they are interested and want to participate.Once the starting elements are there, it’s all about publicity. Talkon message boards forum, talk with political bloggers, email youraddress book about it, whatever you can think of to spread theword….I don’t have much documents besides our discussions and parlement itself. Somehow, there is also rubyforge.
Basically, here are the already implemented features:
In the future:
There are no roles, ranks, agendas, private settings, or obscured data. Everything is transparent, but for passwords (which are recorded as salted hashes and not replicated).
Poll results will be calculated according to a given electoral list. Which would thus act as a caucus of sorts. Anybody will be able to setup any number of electoral lists.
Anyone who has already posted to top-politics already has a parlement’s pseudo. It is the same as your mail’s name. Me for example, it’s “echarp”. Don’t hesitate to try it. You can, among other things, set up your avatar ;)
Come and have a talk on irc (you need to have java on your machine).
echarp – http://leparlement.org/irc
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
Serge wrote:
Hey Gale,when you ask what we can do about that, I take “that” to mean “If yes,why don’t we start try and get more developpers involved to build onleparlement….”. The answer I would have is pretty straightforward.For starters we need an accessible and compelling statement ofintention (TOP definition).OK. That is the job we are doing right now.
We also would need to have a proposal athand for what the system should be able of doing (Emmanuel do you havesuch a definition document?).
Indeed. People will need definition (is that right word?) of future system in order of making people interested.
Then again it’s not like it needs to beall slick and pretty since these documents are openstanding, it is moreto provide a reasonable amount of information and direction for peopleto catch up on the idea and decide if they are interested and want toparticipate. Once the starting elements are there, it’s all aboutpublicity.
So, you think we do not get too loud before first two things are realised in satisfying manner? I do agree with this idea, as long as my previous attempts of getting people interested withouth any “catch” is actually far from satisfying experience. I believe we do indeed need to have some “product” first.
Talk on message boards forum, talk with political bloggers,email your address book about it, whatever you can think of to spreadthe word….IMO it’s not exactly easy to do, but it’s really not that hard either,all it takes is to actually get the ball rolling.
OK.
ATB,
Gale
Regards,Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
+1
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hey,
Your reply seems to show that a definition of transparency _ open _ public as separate parts would remain necessary, however close their principle are could be useful. Using only the word open seems to have triggered the misunderstanding that it would be a “mindless” opening, while the transparency definition does state at this point that: “A transparent organization must ensure full, accurate, and timely disclosure of actions and information. Its actions and their justifications must remain intelligible and clear.”
Also I agree with your statement that delegable proxy can and should be used to reduce noise etc, as has been discussed and agreed in previous posts.
regards,
Serge
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
+1 :-)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Serge
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 05:33, Serge wrote:
Dear Markus and members of the group,Most points seem valid, but I hope you won’t take offense if I pointout it’s not a very engaging read.No offense at all ;-) It wasn’t very engaging to write also, but it has to be done.
I do believe that the medium is (half) the message, and that for TOP to have any kind of traction withthe public, its message must be absolutely as concise and clear aspossible.
I agree!
+1
As you point out, and rightly so, my definition of TOP has elementsmissing. Surely some elements would need to be added, and othersremoved . However, expanding the level of detail beyond what consitutesthe core of TOP for this introductory statement would be a mistake fortwo main reasons:- While exceptions and numerous other things do need to be addressed,bundling everything in the same document will only make it unpalatableto anyone new to the discussion.- While we can all agree on the fundamental meaning and goals of TOPpolitics, we need to be cautious about trying to include details fromthe start, as these details will probably be the points on which wedisagree rather than the essentials – and uselessly delay agreement onthese essential points.
I agree, this was an error of me to define everything in detail in only one document. But still, details have to be defined in special documents which should be referenced in the main one (so it should be understand that they are an integral part of it). Maybe we should take a law-writing approach e.g. use statements like “this issue is defined in a special document”, or “if in doubt consult special elaboration” etc.
Some posts raised the question of whether open and public are the samething. I’ll add that transparency is similar too. In my understanding,the three TOP principles are openness of contents (transparency),openness of structure (open), and openness of access (public). It isinteresting to notice that controlling either information, systeminfrastructure, or access to a political system are widely used methodsof hijacking of supposedly democratic gevernment systems. So how aboutcreating a dedicated reference document for each of the three foundingTOP principles? Or should we just see this as open politics, and nottry to label rigidly the domains to which openness applies?
This was allready been discused so I won’t engage a new discussion here, but let me just tell that I like the pretty definition of TOP you stated ;-)
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Hey Markus, hey everyone!
Finnaly I have a little bit more time to get into Definition of TOP
more deeply.
In this very moment I pasted extracts from Markus to xwiki;
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Transparnet_Open_Public_Principles
I am not sure that it will be good and usefull thing, yet I am sure we will find fine way of solving problem that is in front of us.
ATB,
Gale
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 09:39 AM 9/13/2006, Markus Schatten wrote:
* national security, “raison d’état”That last point is highly dubious, machiavel did say that everything in thestate was a matter of “raison d’état”. Thus it should be very strictlycircumvented.
Circumscribed, i.e., limited. Circumvention is
what Machiavelli would have tried to do with
regulations prohibiting improper use of secrecy :-), i.e, get around them.
I like the document, what I’ve read of it, but I
haven’t read enough to have a sound overall opinion of it.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer