Simple stuff - vocab and familiarity

[Alex Rollin]

I realize I changed the thread by not deleting the contents of the
message, earlier.  Sorry about that.  Learned something about
GoogleGroups.

On the subject of this page: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht

This was the page that Thomas had posted to the MG group shortly after
I joined that got my attention.  I had been on my annual walkabout
looking for decision making tools and software and had joined the list
just in time to catch Thomas referencing this page.

I am an individual on the ground.  I am sorely lacking in the area of
being a member of democratically controlled organizations.  At the
moment I am actually doing something like a needs and priority
assessment for myself, examining the various places in my life where I
want to renew effort and looking to how these can be part of small
world demcoracy:

Work
Housing
Food supplies
Energy Supplies
Transportation (bike, car)

Each of these areas are places I have been looking to either join an
existing user/membership governed cooperative or to start a new one.
I am open to finding one, and I am a bit freaked out by fake democracy
at the moment.

If I am on the ground, then I am looking for ways, again, to be
involved in these groups and to do that with real democracy wherever
possible.

Alex

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Anne Moreland
<judithdaviestripp at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht This is pretty brilliant. I
> guess most of the answers to who is who at the grass roots can be found
> here. The effort now is to make it manifest.
>
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM, JAnne Davies <judithdaviestripp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Furthermore,as much as the "canned" is worthy to be despised as in
>> http://www.brainyquote.com/, history demonstrates that the the
>> majority of people, at least up until now, can easily be persuaded to
>> do what the elites want them to do because the elites have the "power"
>> to persuade. True, the persuasion may involve the threat of military
>> force and or some other form of fear mongering, nevertheless, "canned
>> democracy" has had an appeal for centuries and finds currency within
>> state run democracies even now. For example,
>> "A potent threat to freedom is posed by the rise of democracy's
>> "doubles"—regimes that claim to be democratic and may look like
>> democracies, but which rule like autocracies. Liberal democracy today
>> is challenged on one side by Hugo Rafael Chávez revolutionary
>> Venezuela and on the other by Vladimir Putin's anti revolutionary
>> Russia. The rise of Chávez's "direct democracy" and Russia's "directed
>> democracy" poses a clear challenge to the political pluralism that is
>> central to liberal democracy."
>>
>> Of course Votorola has nothing to do with any of this except insofar
>> as it is able to promote authentic dialogue - a pluralism of many
>> voices. Ideally votorola is intended to provide the technical means
>> for democratic processes to occur from the ground up; it be
>> subversive, occur on the ground and will be  grass roots.
>>
>> A question remains: who are the people on the "ground"? Are WE the
>> "grassroots people on the ground" sufficiently known and understood
>> such that Votorola will be designed to appeal to "WE DUMMIES"? In the
>> end will WE want to interface with Votorola' e-democracy as "THE
>> MEANS" to authentic participatory democracy?
>>
>>
>> On Aug 21, 5:29 pm, Anne Moreland <judithdaviestr... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I am in agreement:" In a revolution, as in a novel, the most difficult
>> > part
>> > to invent is the end."
>> >  Alexis de
>> > Tocqueville<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alexisdeto384738.html>
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rol... at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don't want to derail any furthering going on.
>> >
>> > > I would like to add in though that my recent experience tells me that
>> > > I
>> > > simply do not have enough of a command of the vocabulary of the "real
>> > > democracy" process to be much help in educating others.  I may be
>> > > usefully
>> > > underselling myself but I also feel that "involving" others in a
>> > > process
>> > > means we, I, provide others with a guide to the tools and vocabulary
>> > > I'm
>> > > using and perhaps even make some, or a whole lot, of room for them to
>> > > customize the language so they are comfortable.
>> >
>> > > I want to give a big heartfelt +1 to any scenario that aids small
>> > > groups in
>> > > grabbing hold of real democracy locally, in person, so that the online
>> > > process makes sense.
>> >
>> > > Think about alcoholics anonymous.  The first meeting is weird and you
>> > > take
>> > > it slow, watch, maybe share a bit.  Before you know it a stranger is
>> > > calling
>> > > you because you are a sponsor listed on a website.
>> >
>> > > Lots of learning is needed for this "natural" mode to feel natural
>> > > again.
>> > >  Small group "real democracy games" could go a long way in that
>> > > effort.
>> >
>> > > I think one of the tricks here is for us to make something ideal,
>> > > democracy, possible, and real, for the first time.. Ever?  Well, I
>> > > think you
>> > > knpw what I mean.  Not just make it real, but share the opportunity
>> > > for
>> > > others to go throigh the process of inventing it for themselves, from
>> > > scratch, whenever they need to.
>> >
>> > > I'm thinking of the quote "not one is free until all are free."  we
>> > > could
>> > > do to keep this in mind.  The meekest amongst us still have the tools
>> > > and
>> > > skills to participate.  In addition each has access to a democraric
>> > > "artiste", those who can help them turn their work into art.
>> >
>> > > I was in a meeting today and could feel the wish welling up in me that
>> > > the
>> > > group could continue to do business online and i also know that while
>> > > they
>> > > might discuss online, this is not the same as democracy.  The bridge
>> > > for
>> > > this group, though, will more than likely be made in person before
>> > > being
>> > > taken online.
>> >
>> > > Alex
>> >
>> > > On Aug 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, David Bovill <da... at vaudevillecourt.tv>
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 21 August 2010 01:44, Michael Allan <
>> > > <m... at zelea.com>m... at zelea.com>wrote:
>> >
>> > >> I have a rough plan for the theatre staging:
>> > >>  <http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/crossforum/theatrePlan.svg>
>> > >>http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/crossforum/theatrePlan.svg
>> >
>> > > Think we need to have a Skype caht about this, as i've been out of the
>> > > loop
>> > > with previous conversations.
>> >
>> > > This seems to be an interface sketch fro an app which would allow you
>> > > to
>> > > take part in LD events from home / on the internet? If so - that's the
>> > > sort
>> > > of app that I've often worked on, and got various btis and peices we
>> > > can
>> > > play with, experiment, brain storm over, but I don't quite see yet the
>> > > connection between the sketch and the actual events / that is the
>> > > content of
>> > > the events yet.
>> >
>> > > There are simple ways, and existing interfaces we may be able to use
>> > > for
>> > > this purpose, I think what we need to do is clearly define the
>> > > content, then
>> > > use this to see what we can use, or build, in order to create an LD
>> > > facilitated set of live debates (unconferences).
>> >
>> > > Why "live real-space events"? Because taking part in the debate for
>> > > everyone concerned is effort, and we need the show to be good enough,
>> > > dramatic enough, for it to be something people want to come again to.
>> > > This
>> > > is easiest to achieve by featuring / covering talks at a real space
>> > > event,
>> > > which gives a focus to the participation. From that point we can scale
>> > > the
>> > > adhoc participation from individuals taking part through an single web
>> > > based
>> > > GUI.
>> >
>> > > David Bovill wrote:
>> > >> > ... What we need to do is put a good team together that are
>> > >> > committed, have complementary skills that cover these different
>> > >> > bases.
>> >
>> > >> From my point of view, the steps to team building are:
>> >
>> > >>  1) Code an all-round functional alpha. (done)
>> > >>  2) Add an attractive entry window.
>> > >>  3) Get a few quality users and work closely with them.
>> > >>  4) Pull in a second skilled developer.
>> >
>> > >> I guess you see unconferences as an entry window (2).  The advantage
>> > >> is that it has elements of (4) in it.  You get both users *and*
>> > >> developers at once, at least for a day or two.  The advantage of my
>> > >> approach is that it scales more easily and rapidly in terms of user
>> > >> participation.
>> >
>> > > Possibly. But only if a few assumptions are fulfilled:
>> >
>> > >    1. The user experience (UX) of the interface, and the participation
>> > > is
>> > >    sufficiently good for them to want to come back for more. If you
>> > > think of
>> > >    the software as a web game - then to develop the user experience to
>> > > this
>> > >    level can take a huge amount of work, and no one will play it until
>> > > the UX
>> > >    is good enough - only then will it scale.
>> > >    2. Solo participation via the web is compelling enough - to offset
>> > > the
>> > >    initial teething / bootstrapping problems.
>> > >    3. We will be able to attract the same quality and quantity of
>> > >    speakers, artists and film makers to an online event, in alpha
>> > > software as
>> > >    we will in a live real space event.
>> >
>> > > It is my view that the content, and idea is more attractive than the
>> > > software at this stage. That yes we need to put both together (we need
>> > > the
>> > > LD game logic), but we are better using real-space and video for the
>> > > interface, than on relying simply on an online GUI in the early
>> > > stages.
>> >
>> > > The APIs are pretty much ready for the first developer who needs them.
>> > >>  Some improvements could be made up front.  Others would probably
>> > >> wait
>> > >> till I could dialogue with that first developer.
>> >
>> > >> >    2. Use the RoadShow. Theatre requires good visuals, it attracts
>> > >> people
>> > >> >    who like to make good visuals. In the time scale between no and
>> > >> > the
>> > >> actual
>> > >> >    roadshow we will be able to work with a team to produce those
>> > >> > visuals
>> > >> >    together. Not DIY, not ourselves, but focus on the team
>> > >> > creation,
>> > >> associated
>> > >> >    with the event.
>> >
>> > >> By RoadShow, you mean unconference?
>> >
>> > > Yes - if that is the format chosen.
>> >
>> > > So should we wait for one of these events to be organized before we
>> > >> start developing a marquee user interface (like crossforum theatre)?
>> > >> Or should we start on that now, even if that means starting alone?
>> >
>> > > Bit of both. We need the "marquee user interface" for the launch
>> > > event. And
>> > > we need to invite people, fix the dates and venue, get the content
>> > > sorted,
>> > > organise people (SpectActors) that are ready to implement the various
>> > > LD
>> > > roles in the event (online and in real space). Again, to maximise
>> > > everyones
>> > > sense of energy and promote teamwork these things should be run in
>> > > parallel,
>> > > not wait for software to be finished first.
>> >
>> > >> David Bovill wrote (in the other thread):
>> > >> > To try to suggest proposals that may go some way to answering this
>> > >> > question [what kinds of interaction?], I've sketched out a number
>> > >> > of
>> > >> > forms / aspects that I think these real space events / performative
>> > >> > interfaces can take:
>> >
>> > >> >    1. Subtlety - hell it's not really that different! We can move
>> > >> smoothly
>> > >> >    from a traditional Unconference to more imaginative performances
>> > >> > as
>> > >> >    resources, the audience and the need arises.
>> > >> >    2. A Game Example
>> > >> >    3. An Intimate Example
>> > >> >    4. A Practical Example
>> >
>> > >> I realize now that we probably don't have to code support for
>> > >> specific
>> > >> types of interaction up front.  They're mostly a matter of production
>> > >> content (scripted or just thematic).
>> >
>> > >> I don't really know if you'd want (or need) to produce anything
>> > >> specifically for crossforum theatre, in support of unconferences etc.
>> >
>> > > Yes - but I see this as derivative of the actual events, it's a
>> > > spin-off
>> > > product rather than something that drives the events.
>> >
>> > >> In addition, you might produce an overview of all those
>> > >> unconferences,
>> > >> in various stages of happening, maybe as a running summary.  (Hear
>> > >> what people are saying, see where they are located in
>> > >> democracy-space,
>> > >> and so forth.)
>> >
>> > > Yes
>> >
>> > > I read through your other examples, but no other production ideas came
>> > >> to mind.
>> >
>> > > What do you mean by a "production idea" - I think of production in the
>> > > theatre sense here - they are clearly different productions?
>> >
>> > >> The frame sequencer doesn't actually give me lots of
>> > >> creative ideas for other productions.  )Maybe we can find a better
>> > >> medium, later.)  But it at least suffices for the conversation-based
>> > >> productions, which I think are the most important.  (The most
>> > >> important of all might be one that allowed you to follow the doings
>> > >> of
>> > >> your friends, family and other peers in democracy space.)
>> >
>> > > I'm not attracted / maybe don't fully get to the idea of a "Frame
>> > > Sequencer" - I want to be able to explore, navigate, debates and
>> > > arguments
>> > > that support or contradict each other - I want to see various ways in
>> > > which
>> > > the parts can be remixed, and be seen as part of a whole cohesive,
>> > > debate,
>> > > performance, play, event.