[MG] Come together or reach out - was cascading etc.
Thomas von der Elbe
ThomasvonderElbe at gmx.de
Fri Jun 10 09:00:51 EDT 2011
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 2:19, Michael Allan wrote:
>> What they do after they know about it [after adoption]:
>> i. pass the info on
>> ii. start to discuss and draft their own positions within their own
>> community (or just draft by themselves)
>> iii. look for the best candidate to vote for
>> iv. look for voters for their position
>> v. discuss, negotiate, ... with each other, with candidate and with voters
>> i., iii., and iv. require reaching out to other communities/individuals.
>> For neither one extra tool-support is needed imo beyond the tools we
>> already have (including a pirate-pad where everyone can complete the
>> list of potentially interesting other communities).
> That seems plausible as far as adoption goes. But even here you
> address a different pair of choices than I do. You are looking at
> these alternative *mental* dispostions or attitudes to public
> * Reject others; or
> * Reach out to others.
> I agree that most people will dismiss the first as obviously flawed.
> Less obvious is what to choose in regard to one's *physical*
> disposition in public space:
> (i) Converge, come together with those who agree.
> (ii) Diverge, spread out amongst others. Reach out to those who
> agree across the intervening distances.
Both are interrelated, are they not? We reach out in order to come
together. In the end we want 6 billion people to come together. (Come
together in the public spere as a whole. If this happens to be in a
single forum or platform ... fine, but it probably will exceed even the
internet as a whole.) To all come together we have to reach out to each
other. So I agree, that (ii) is very important to achieve (i).
And these are the most efficient means I see atm (so imo not a separate
>> about tagging:
>> Individuals expressing on their pages, what topics they are
>> interested in, what communities they are in, what polls they are
>> active in. And the same for each of the four aspects. Now this seems
>> very helpfull for iii. and iv. (and much more) because its kind of
>> hard to get this info out of plain textual positions. A fifth
>> category comes to my mind: Personal values ... very expressive and a
>> bit different than topics, are they not? I remember DemocracyLab had
>> this integrated.
Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
More information about the Votorola