[MG] Cascading agreement, money, communities and other resources in votespace

[Alexander Praetorius]

+1 for the idea of letting tools count any resource instead of just votes:-)

 

 

 

From: start-bounces at metagovernment.org
[mailto:start-bounces at metagovernment.org] On Behalf Of Thomas von der Elbe
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:48 AM
To: Metagovernment Project
Subject: Re: [MG] Cascading agreement, money, communities and other
resources in votespace

 

To make a really obvious example of what becomes possible if we use the
consensus-making tools not just for counting votes but also for counting any
other ressources: 

A community has no kindergarden but wants one. They start a poll and many
different plans emerge of how it should be like, where exactly it should be
located etc. Every plan expresses the amount of the different necessary
resources for its realization, i.e. votes, money, land, labour, bricks,
wood, ... And now all the people voting for a paricular plan can express
what recources they are willing to contribute. And the count-engine counts
them all up. So everyone can see, what is still missing and what not. If the
count reaches 100% the plan can be executed, all the resources are there.
Happy parents, happy children! :-) 

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 6:43, Michael Allan wrote: 

Thomas has concerns about (c), and I try to factor them out here:



 
 (1) That we should pioneer the practice of extension manually, so to
     speak, without tool supports.
 
 (2) That tools might not be needed for this practice at all.
 
 (3) That the practice is only useful during the early adoption phase
     of the technology.  Once the first poll hits the news, nobody
     will be worried about extension anymore.
 
 (4) That it's wasteful to develop tools that are likely to be
     outmoded so soon.
 
I agree with (1) and disagree with the others.  But did I state these
correctly, Thomas?


Yes you did. But something changed for me meanwhile. The problem, that
currently existing communities will not necesarrily also be
voting-communities, i.e. voting the same way. This will probably change
quick and those communities will re-arange, split up, etc. Also, communities
will structure themselves into many sub-communities, because voters will
want to talk to their candidate alone (but in public) and not be disturbed
by voters from other candidates. So the average sub-community-size will be
15 members or so. 

Somehow I believe, there is an overall tendency towards a huge single forum
for everybody with many sub-sub-sub communities for the simple reason, that
it makes vote-shifts easier. If you are just a small group and you want to
win other voters, you better go where they are talking already, so they dont
need to bother for a new login etc if they consider joining you. Maybe I'm
wrong here and OpenID has lowered this hurdle enough so there will be many
forums. But still I am convinced that once a single poll has exploded in a
population, there are no tools needed any more to support the growth of the
next poll.

Therefore I still see no use for this kind of tool for the long-term, but
more than I did before for the short term. (The only long-term use might be
as a measurement for rapidly growing (not just in numbers but also
communities) and therefore interesting polls. But this is very small use I
guess.)

Thomas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20110606/0fd2afd7/attachment-0001.html>


Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org