Guerilla gardening for participatory democracy

[Anne Moreland]

Mike before God in heaven I do not see any create tab on this
page....nevertheless, I do remember both seeing one and using one when I
used the forgesource alias. Please check out the page by means of the link I
am sending you and tell me I am mistaken: lhttp://
www.openfarmtech.org/index.php/Main_Page
JAnne

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:

> Anne Moreland wrote:
> > Mike; "You're awesome dude! " Great insights. Yes to "GUERRILA
> > GARDENING" ie. lots and lots of acorns to trees from the ground up
> > planted by gnome -like creatures invisible to the power behind the
> > single eye on the Yankee dollar etc. etc.. OH YEAH!
>
> The dude abides. :-)  Guerilla gardening it is!
>
> Now what we need is: a step-by-step method for the gardeners to extend
> a seedling tree across *two* discussion forums.  (This is mostly stuff
> for geeks/wonks to figure out.)  The tree has to remain standing even
> *after* the gardeners pull out.  So only the other participants will
> be there to keep it alive.  The gardeners then move on to a 3rd forum
> and apply the method again - and so on - attracting more participants,
> and extending the tree further at each step.
>
>  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#figure-16
>
> Seedling trees look something like that ^.  Green dots are
> participants, and arrows are text flow/vote flow.  Each voter group
> would normally be discussing their differences with the delegate in a
> separate forum, or thread.
>
> Or like this:
>
>
>                       (I)  (K)  (L)
>                         \ 1 | 1 /
>                          \  |  / 1    (A)   (B)
>                 (P)  (O)  \ | /        | 1  /
>        (R)        \ 1 |    \|/         |   / 1
>          \ 1       \  | 1  (M)         |  /
>           \         \ |     |          | /  (E)  (F)
>            \         \|     | 4        |/    | 1 /
>         1   \        (Q)    |         (C)    |  / 1
>     (S)-----(T)        \ 3  |          |     | /
>               \ 3       \   |          | 3   |/
>                \         \  |          |    (H)-----(G)
>                 \         \ |    (D)   |    /     1
>      1       2   \         \|      \ 1 |   /
>  (U)-----(V)-----(W)       (N)      \  |  / 4
>                    \ 6     /         \ | /
>                     \     / 8         \|/
>                      \   /            (J)
>                       \ /
>                       (X)              8
>                                       ---
>                        14
>                       ----
>
> So group J(D,C,H) is in one forum, while H(E,F,G) is in another.  Note
> that delegate H is necessarily in *both* forums.  So I guess the
> recruitment of non-gardener, cross-forum delegates will be crucial to
> the method.)
>
> I couldn't come up with a method today.  Maybe tomorrow.
>
> Alex Rollin wrote:
> > On the technical side technicians are often faced with activities
> > like "doing" something so that something else can happen.  Creating
> > "Function X" so "User Billy" can get "Output Statement Zed" from
> > "Function X" in a way that matches with "User Billy's" expectations
> > and doesn't sabotage the large collection of systems of within which
> > "Function X" operates.
> >
> > Technicians can easily be cornered by such an approach.
>
> That's part of the solution-disease, I guess.  Maybe the cure is to
> put our feet on the ground, and get our hands/heads busy with the full
> reality of what we're doing?  I'm not sure.  But I *can* report that
> politics is far more enjoyable and satisfying than I ever imagined.
> (Maybe the Greeks were right.)
>
> > > What we're proposing in Babble (actually *do* participatory
> > > democracy in a small way) seems to be the key. What's interesting
> > > now, is to see the "lock" that it fits.
> >
> > Most groups "do" this in some way shape or form.  Needs, wants, help
> > requested, and "My Tasks" are a few of the way that individuals
> > broadcast such things, though these are often only valuable within
> > small-world networks.
>
> Scope is crucial.  Ed Pastore's idea of starting out in a chess club
> won't work.  Cut the scope too far, and you may lose the whole essence
> of the problem.  You may no longer be doing democracy.  But more
> important, by cutting the scope, you limit the scale.  (Small scale is
> fine, but the seedling needs space to grow in.)
>
> But that's a more understandable mistake (conflating scope and scale)
> than the one everyone else is making.  They consciously limit the
> participatory side, in order to simplify the solution.  They end up
> with little better than a *model* of the non-participatory status quo.
> The definition of participatory democracy can be pretty simple.
> Mills' captures it neatly, I think, in just 4 points:
>
> http://u.zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/Guerilla_gardening#Seedlings_of_participatory_democracy
>
> Nobody has attempted that (all 4 points) in the last 150 years.  They
> always attempt something less.  Or am I wrong?  Can anyone point to
> where?
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
> http://zelea.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.reluk.ca/list/votorola/attachments/20100810/3f0bd1db/attachment-0007.html>