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
Many, many talk about it, nothing has been done about it. OK, almost nothing, as long as E is doing +1/o/-1 stuff in this moment. Yet, there is no organised manner of fighting non transparency of this group. So, let me start with it on this topic.
First of all, OFF TOPIC. If somebody makes some off topic, it would be rather good to open new topic about it if there is no already topic about it.
In that way, other members who do not lurk trough every single theme all the time, will have oportunity to see that and participate there.
Another thing is that I can notice many very simmilar topics all the way, in the last time usually about lemming stuff.
This random theme promotion is NOT GOOD. If we look this group, we can not find one single topic where several members decided to solve one single problem till the moment they succeed in that.
So, my first reccomendation about this is this procedure:
Second reccomendation would be finding way of articulation of the procedure of how to get conclusions of the topic and conclusions themselves. Yet, first reccomendation is the first thing to do.
So, what do you think?
One more thing. If E, Mark, Magnus and Markus agree about this, Eric said he would do the same thing. So, is this a good way forward or not?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+5
New discussion
Answer
+1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren’t all issues opened to discussion by anyone?)
In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which will allow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
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
echarp wrote:
+1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren’t all issuesopened to discussion by anyone?)I am not sure I understand you again.
4 is ment to each one of us if want to start new topic uses stuff that already exist on this group, but is spreaded around, making it not reachable to average user who wont lurk all around for it.
In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which willallow us to articulate our thoughts even better.
So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negative consequences but “not fighting against mess reputation”, we are talking about list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, but if we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that line will profit.
Is there still the problem about it, E?
ATB,
Gale
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
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 06:38:24AM -0700, illegale wrote:
echarp wrote:Oups, I meant number 3+1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren’t all issuesopened to discussion by anyone?)I am not sure I understand you again.
But I guess this is just a manner to open discussion, and that every body else is of course invited.
What is mess reputation?In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which willallow us to articulate our thoughts even better.So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negativeconsequences but “not fighting against mess reputation”, we are talkingabout list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, butif we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that linewill profit.
Is there still the problem about it, E?
No real problem, I’m definitely fine about this kind of thread management. Plus it will thus be much easier to vote on individual messages/issues ;)
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
echarp wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 06:38:24AM -0700, illegale wrote:OK. So, it is just an option I prefer to use in the moment other members should be informed about discussion. Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we all follow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that means we are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.echarp wrote:Oups, I meant number 33. Invite other members you find would be interested in it+1 although I have troubles with the rule number 4 (aren’t all issuesopened to discussion by anyone?)I am not sure I understand you again.
As long as some members can not participate on the group allways, they have to announce it, to find out what to do than _wait_inform by telephonne/do without them/. Is this needed in this moment, I do not know, so, if you have problem with it, we can leave it beside in this moment.
But I guess this is just a manner to open discussion, and that everybody else is of course invited.Something bad :-)What is mess reputation?In time, I hope there will be super issues, or categories, which willallow us to articulate our thoughts even better.So, this might be culture, or policy. As long as there is no negativeconsequences but “not fighting against mess reputation”, we are talkingabout list culture, where we can do same thing as we already did, butif we agree to follow the same line, everyone who accepts that linewill profit.
Suppose taht we will all apreciate if we systemise this group a little bit more than it is systemised now. but if somebody wont do such thing, it is his right, yet those who want to systemise group wont respect it/him because of that.
Cool!Is there still the problem about it, E?No real problem, I’m definitely fine about this kind of threadmanagement. Plus it will thus be much easier to vote on individualmessages/issues ;)
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
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote:
Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we allfollow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that meanswe are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.This is a good idea, but I predict that it can’t scale with participants and issues…
Implicit agreement will not work when issues and voices are buried in a mass of other issues and voices.
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
echarp wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote:Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we allfollow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that meanswe are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.This is a good idea, but I predict that it can’t scale withparticipants and issues…
Implicit agreement will not work when issues and voices are buried in amass of other issues and voices.
OK, that would be a second step. Articulation of decision making process and articulation of conclusions. Right?
Nevertheless, it seems to me that this part is actually belonging to second step.
So, my opinion about 3 is 0.
If we think it is good to invite members, we will invite them.
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
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:20:33AM -0700, illegale wrote:
echarp wrote:What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need to vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote:Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we allfollow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that meanswe are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.This is a good idea, but I predict that it can’t scale withparticipants and issues…
If we think it is good to invite members, we will invite them.
Of course we are always free to :)
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
What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you need
to vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?
What a minute!
Are you discussing todays forum now or the final system?
AD can handle thousands if issues without to much struggle for the
average citizen but can we keep this discussion to the current
situation please?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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 Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:25:51PM -0000, MG wrote:
Yes I am. Would it not be great if this current forum could scale up? If our current postings were not lost?What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you needto vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?What a minute!Are you discussing todays forum now or the final system?
AD can handle thousands if issues without to much struggle for theaverage citizen but can we keep this discussion to the currentsituation please?
How would issues be organised? (I did write a mail about that, care to pursue it?)
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
Did you read the AD party programme or my explanations of it? Organized in a list where the user can sort on age of proposal, originator of it, accumulated support (=forecast on when the vote can be over), area of interest etc etc.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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 Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:58:16PM -0000, MG wrote:
Did you read the AD party programme or my explanations of it?I read it but didn’t keep it in mind. Sorry.
Organized in a list where the user can sort on age of proposal,originator of it, accumulated support (=forecast on when the vote canbe over), area of interest etc etc.
Area of interest, hum hum, what is that? How is it associated with issues?
All other criteria don’t seem like enough to me. Thousands of issues would look like a nightmare if sorted only on date, author or support.
Anyway, organising issues is VERY important, yet we haven’t discussed it much… :-(
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
Area of interset is maybe wrong wording, I mean is it about
infrastucture, education, health care in terms of political area.
The AD vision is:
There will probably never be thousands of issues since few will be in a
state over a certain support ready for a prognostized finalisation (a
certain level of the accumulated support depending on the democracy
constant set in the system) within say 4 weeks, but still never to be
decided upon by reaching the level of 1.
At least not if you filter out political areas that you don’t care
about or have delegated.
A lot will never gain any big support at all due the just the fact that
people (and polticians today!) can only concentrate on a limited number
of issues in the same time.
This is not a problem since good decision making will lead to less
problem with old issues giving more space for new issues once the old
ones are well handled and finsihed.
So of course we can discuss ways of sorting issues but much will
actually be handled automagically by the AD system.
There is no need to everyone to read all new issues. If an issue is
well written and has good arguments it is possible to promote like in
todays political world.
These good proposals will be the only one needed to handle for the
average user. They will also be the ones news media will be reporting
from.
Bad written, non funded or not liked proposals will never bother the
average user.
Only if you have very deep interest in a certain political field, you
may choose to watch for new proposals that may have been put.
And finally, as said before, this is not an issue anyway for the
current TOP-group.
The issue can well be handled later once we have decided on to start to
make decisions at all…using AD or any other democratic principle.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
I comment on two "comments, First
This random theme promotion is NOT GOOD. If we look this group, we can not find one single topic where several members decided to solve one single problem till the moment they succeed in that.
So, my first reccomendation about this is this procedure:
1. Articulate the topic 2. Start the topic 3. Invite other members you find would be interested in it 4. All the off topic that suits to that topic on the other themes, move there. 5 If there come out the new questions, articulate them and open new topic or join it to existing topic about it.Second recommendation would be finding way of articulation of the procedure of how to get conclusions of the topic and conclusions themselves. Yet, first recommendations is the first thing to do.
Bruce comments
I do not think all who “drop in” understand the goal of TP as topic in eParlement nor how to respond to items. I suggest a "face page “first read” which explains this and basic style to post and respond. People do not involve themselves unless they understand the process. They do not want to appear “stupid” or be flamed.
The more information on “how to” the more people will be involved. It they are “comfortable” and feel “accepted” they will participate. We non programmers sometimes feel inferior to the makers of these programs.
So, to enlarge the program, to begin topics, we need to know that is what you want to do.
Perhaps a “test” by beginning to use for issue discussion?
Should we begin on “world issues” rather than local so all the world people can become involved? Bruce
+1
New discussion
Answer
It seems to me we are fragmented. Discuss on le Parlement? How many discuss on Bulletin Board? Email lists loose subjects so that is not good. I like WDDM Forum, however it seems people do not bother to log in. If a group exists, the people “hash out” talk things over, and from that come up with ideas for improvement of the group. (community, government, country, family etc.)
Than they present the idea to the group, who further discuss, modify it and perhaps agree on the final outcome.
Could we do this on leParlement, by introducing a topic (such as this) and than people respond their ideas directly to this topic? Than as we come to final outcome(s) they could be put in a separate topic and voted upon?
Please respond directly to this post, so we can build ideas and resolutions like we were just discussing this in the “neighborhood”. Bruce
+2
New discussion
Answer
Hi
I’m afraid the TOP group is rather dead now. Plus it didn’t manage to generate any thing, except interesting conversation on what is transparency.
Well, to me this was interesting.
Don’t hesitate to just join on the main http://leparlement.org page, and discuss there. Or any sub forum, even one you can create (simply use a cool subject for it, the url will be generated from that subject).
There is of course a test forum where anybody can play as they want.
+1
+1
New discussion
Answer
Dear Emmanuel
On Monday 08 May 2006 18:19, echarp wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:58:16PMWhy not take a SourceForge approach as disscused earlier. Issues organized in projects or organizations. Each project has his own forum, voting system, wiki etc. where issues can be organized quite well.0000, MG wrote:(Did you read the AD party programme or my explanations of it?I read it but didn’t keep it in mind. Sorry.Organized in a list where the user can sort on age of proposal,originator of it, accumulated support (=forecast on when the vote canbe over), area of interest etc etc.Area of interest, hum hum, what is that? How is it associated withissues?All other criteria don’t seem like enough to me. Thousands of issueswould look like a nightmare if sorted only on date, author or support.Anyway, organising issues is VERY important, yet we haven’t discussedit much… :
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 Fri, May 05, 2006 at 07:44:25PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
Why not take a SourceForge approach as disscused earlier. Issues organized in projects or organizations. Each project has his own forum, voting system, wiki etc. where issues can be organized quite well.I actually have a “book of laws” approach. Where a group of individuals is given a tool used to democratically write those books.
And I would separate the books themselves from their voters, each book elements being approved or not through electoral lists.
Where are managed electoral lists in you opinion? (no one here discusses those lists)
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
I agree, the “rule of law” is an agreed upon process. We need to have only one topic per initiative. Than each topic is voted upon based on it’s merit.
As we sort through the issues, we will have the most supported at top. Than we can refine and vote again. When a consensus is obtained we could submit to the Simpol project which would than be considered world wide for vote. Bruce
+1
New discussion
Answer
MG wrote:
OK. I suppose we can involve new parameters in the moment we see the need for such. In the same time, importance of the issue is needed right now IMO. As long as AD is the only system that involves importance stratification. I am pro using it.What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you needto vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?What a minute!Are you discussing todays forum now or the final system?AD can handle thousands if issues without to much struggle for theaverage citizen but can we keep this discussion to the currentsituation please?
Yet, that wuold probalby be second set that involves processing conclusion stuff. Or maybe even before that?
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
echarp wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:20:33AM -0700, illegale wrote:echarp wrote:What happens when there are thousands or millions of issues? Do you needto vote on each to make sure you don’t agree?On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:45AM -0700, illegale wrote:Not sure to follow you. Can you explain it a little bit more?Another option we use in Tiaktiv is 48h rule, meaning that we allfollow the whole conversation, so if there is no comment, that meanswe are all fine with that, so we can go forward together.This is a good idea, but I predict that it can’t scale withparticipants and issues…
I suppose it is not right thing for millions. Yet, open play is constantly changing play. Larger numbers, different modes becoming more usefull and stuff.
If we think it is good to invite members, we will invite them.Of course we are always free to :)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
One of the reasons still mixing different issue with each other is the
lack of more than one fourm.
In PHPbb there are different categories possible.
Here we have to live with a more strict use of different threads.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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
MG wrote:
One of the reasons still mixing different issue with each other is thelack of more than one fourm.OK. Yet, we should possibly start working on the interface that will have this option IMO.
ATB,
Gale
In PHPbb there are different categories possible.Here we have to live with a more strict use of different threads.
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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 Mon, May 08, 2006 at 06:54:04AM -0700, illegale wrote:
MG wrote:We can open any number of other groups, can we not?One of the reasons still mixing different issue with each other is thelack of more than one fourm.OK. Yet, we should possibly start working on the interface that willhave this option IMO.In PHPbb there are different categories possible.Here we have to live with a more strict use of different threads.
Same on parlement where each message is its own forum.
I can easily create as many forums as required with simple emails and web urls like:
And later, maybe something like http://faq.leparlement.org
(in fact anybody is able to create such a thing, but right now the id, like “faq”, are automatically generated guid that don’t look so nice).
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
-1
-1
Good suggestions!
I will stopp all my current argumentation and start trying follow the
rule 1 to 5 from now on!
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
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 to all five ;-)
Best regards
—
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
Sie erhalten diese Nachricht, weil Sie Mitglied von Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
Um sich von dieser Gruppe abzumelden, senden Sie eine E-Mail an top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer