StratML Narrative - Case Use of Votorola?
Thomas von der Elbe
ThomasvonderElbe at gmx.de
Tue Oct 26 09:28:15 EDT 2010
Hi Alex,
yes, I do understand the need for Vote Processing. Its basically meant
as a filter, right?
So a user can answer all kinds of questions, e.g.:
How many votes for this proposal are not older than 4 weeks?
How many members of Greenpeace which are from Berlin voted for it? ...
Like this?
Thomas
Alex Rollin schrieb:
>
>
> http://u.zelea.com/w/User:Alex.rollin-GmailCom/Vote_Processing
>
>
> --
> Alex
>
> “It’s no longer possible for a country to collapse in isolation. Now
> we all collapse.
>
> The only path to stability is to equalize the consumption rates of the
> first and developing world. Our dream is no longer possible in the new
> world.” - Jared Diamond March 2010
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com
> <mailto:alex.rollin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas!
>
> Thabks for looking at the detail in the rules and commenting on
> them. Depending on the situation your amendments might be more
> appropriate, yes.
>
> I had a conversation with Mike about what he called "vote
> processing" which is the filtering of votes on a poll/position
> witha custom voter list and a set of triggers like these rules and
> the ones you mention.
>
> I made notes from the call wih Mike though theyare a bit messy.
> You can find them on a sub page coming off my user page on the
> pollwiki.
>
> My goal is to write all thse rules down as a function of vote
> processing, along with simple usr stories like what this blog post
> hints at.
>
> In fact I'm not going to move much further ahead on vote
> processing until I spend more energy on crossforum theatre. Mike
> and I spoke about it and it does seem the logical next step to
> xomplete the prototype.
>
> At that point, prototype "complete," it will be easier to habe
> discussions about how vote processing could be implented.
>
> Though I'm already a bit rusty from the call with Mike I am a bit
> clearer on the central position of the pollwiki paying more heed
> to Mike's caution of deisgning it out at this stage in the
> development.
>
> Becaue of this I can see that a few requirements for the
> crossforum theatre ui would be an effort in the right direction of
> understanding how users will interact with the discussion created
> on a single pollserver, multiple areas or divisions, or even
> multiple pollservers.
>
> The use case we discussed was to give a usr a notification that a
> diff bridge link has been posted to a mailman list that, and the
> diff eidge link is for a poll within an area in which the usrr is
> registered on the pollwiki.
>
> I think stratml is great and I've sent the post to Owen for
> review, and he has sent it o n to others.
>
> One step I do plan to make towars implementation iz to attempt to
> implement a stratml semantic form in mediawiki. I'm at the early
> stages having just installed the sematic bundle on my mediaiwiki a
> couple days ago. I still don't know much about it to tell the
> truth though and hope to make more progress in the coming month.
> If anyone wants to jump in just let me know!
>
> Once implemented it would be possible to use flaggedRevisions
> extention to implement a portion of the "active strategy document"
> idea outlined in the blog post.
>
> Alex
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Thomas von der Elbe
> <ThomasvonderElbe at gmx.de <mailto:ThomasvonderElbe at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> Hey Alex,
>
> I just read through your text. First, ofc it's easy to imagine
> how Votorola comes into play. It's the perfect usecase for it.
>
> Then, Owen Ambur is one of the active makers of statml and
> also a member in the metagov-list. We have been talking with
> him about using stratml in Votorola.
>
> Then you write: 10. An active amendment that remains unopposed
> for 30 days will be integrated into the active strategy
> document immediately, creating a new version of the active
> strategy document
>
> I see a possible problem. E.g. three bad guys over-float the
> rest of the group with countless active amandments, until they
> cannot keep up opposing anymore. I would prefer a majority
> rule like: at least 60% of the owners must vote for the
> amandment for at least 4 weeks.
>
> Then there is also no more use for: 2. A group of 3 or more
> owning members may propose an amendment to the active strategy
> document.
>
> Because every single owner could propose one without harm.
>
> An additional good thing with Votorola would be: If an
> amandment can not climb higher then 50% for instance, people
> can propose improvements for the amandment. You know the tree:
> Improvements for improvements for improvements for documents.
> Which pobably makes the most sense, when the number of
> participants is getting higher.
>
> So it all sounds good! Are you actually going to do it? Or how
> far are you already with the cafe?
>
> Mike is off-line for a few days, he'll probably reply later too.
>
> Thomas
>
>
> Alex Rollin schrieb:
>
> I wrote this little piece today. I've spoken in the past
> about what I
> want to use Votorola for. Basically I want touse it to
> draft things
> democratically.
>
> I've been involved in a few conversations the last couple
> of days that
> centered on "what is this group doing" in the context of
> several
> groups.
>
> This little piece uses the drafting and redrafting of a
> StratML
> document as the goal of what is basically a legislative
> process.
>
> When you read the piece you might imagine how Votorola
> would be used
> for carrying out the voting and maintaining the draft.
>
> Well, that's the hope at least ;)
>
> I realize there are some mismatches, and I wrote it
> anyways! Any and
> all feedback welcome!
>
> http://alexrollin.com/content/stratml-production-groups
>
> Alex Rollin
More information about the Votorola
mailing list