alex.rollin at gmail.com
Wed Jun 16 10:27:19 EDT 2010
I wonder, thinking in text:
1. Is the code as simple as can be?
2. Are the major component areas well documented as to purposes,
3. Could someone now, then, re-write votorola in another language based
on the documentation?
4. Is there a way to standardize or document the information that goes in
and out of the front end, which, in the current case, is a wiki? (I do
5. Are there plans to allow for other authorization schemes like Oauth
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> (thinking aloud) I see two ways forward for Votorola:
> (1) Reaching out
> (2) Bringing together
> The first way entails going into existing communities and wiring them
> up with our tools. We're unique in being able to do this, because we
> have the difference bridge. Our immediate problem is to find suitable
> communities (low hanging fruit) to reach out to. Here's an open
> thread that asks, "What communities are reachable?"
> The second way (often pursued by Thomas) entails bringing multiple
> e-democracy projects together under a single umbrella organization (or
> association), and holding them there on the strength of the tools.
> Again, we're uniquely qualified for this because of the open
> architecture we've built up (in which Votorola is just another plug-in
> component). But (again) the immediate problem is to find suitable
> candidates: either a) a second technical project to associate with; or
> b) an existing organization to serve as an umbrella. Since April,
> we've been making a trial run at (b), with Ed Pastore's Metagovernment
> as the prospective organization. Here are the latest threads:
> see Kind of presentable (sort of), and
> Is Main Page unapproachable?
> What other ways are there? Or are these two good enough? They'd both
> give the tools a good workout (crucial at this stage).
> Michael Allan
> Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Votorola