Issue-Boundary

[Thomas von der Elbe]

Mike wrote:

> > Only the deepest level is then about issues, the way you use the term,
> > right?
> > ...
> > With "single issue-forest" you mean a forest of many
> > procedural-abstraction-trees all concerning one single issue, right?

Yes, a single issue forest.  Except I don't equate cascade voting with
abstraction, so I don't see the whole trees as abstraction-trees.  The
procedural abstraction in the tree tops, as I see it, is voting based
on limited information; like based on classification tags, as you say.
But I see that only in a thin (but maybe massive) halo at the tree
tops, and not in the middle of the trees.

To explain: In my own picture, there is no great difference in content
between the drafts near the tree top (drafters with only 10 or 100
votes), and those near the bottom (100,000 or millions).  The
diff/merge will keep all of their drafts more-or-less in sync
vertically, in as far as it's politically possible.  The biggest
differences will be horizontal I think - from branch to branch, and
especially tree to tree.  What I see in the vertical is people talking
to each other and text flowing along those same lines of
communication, in both directions.

One difference I see toward the bottom is increasing competence of
consensus building/drafting.  But I don't see it as reflected in the
content of the drafts.  Text can flow freely, up as well as down.  The
drafts near the top will be almost as expertly crafted as those near
the bottom, even though the drafters are not expert.

The reason to vote near the top instead of the bottom is, I think,
mostly for communication.  You can talk with a drafter who has 10
votes, but not with one who has a million.  So I see depth as mostly a
technique to enable communication that would otherwise be blocked.  I
don't see it as an aid to abstraction.

(The inverted halo at top is the exception.  It's purpose is not
 communicative.  But it's a new idea and I don't have a clear picture
 of it yet.  I imagine it's going to be crucial, though, especially in
 the early voting.)

> > Mike, I still need more time to think, to fully understand all this. It´s
> > still hard for me to concentrate today.

I hope my own picture doesn't cloud yours.  It's good to see different
perspectives.  An issue-less medium is an interesting idea.  I can't
see it all yet, but I'm attracted by its freedom and simplicity.  (All
issue forests are joined as one, and somehow the voters range freely,
each with a quiver full of votes.)