Can our party pick your brain?

Thomas von der Elbe ThomasvonderElbe at
Sun Mar 13 05:32:16 EDT 2011

Kevin told me, he is going to officially register the party now.

Now I think, it would be good, to immidiatly start using our tools. So 
the first members of the party get already a feeling, what it is all 
about, even if the tools in general are still in prototyp-phase. So even 
the party principles itself could be subject to collaborative 
improvement right from the beginning and open to every new member.

Next steps from my point of view would now be:

- Discussion-Medium: setup a discussion forum at the partys homepage. 
This could be used for new members to exchange ideas etc. But more 
importantly it could be used to discuss specific differences in 
positions regarding party principles or party policies. This type of 
forum would ideally allow to structure tons of threads in a 
tree-structure (maybe every forum allows this, I dont know). So every 
policy-issue could have its own thread and every voter in this issue can 
have his own sub-thread and maybe even sub-sub-threads for certain parts 
of his position. There can be thousands of threads in the future.

- Drafting-Medium: I guess for the beginning we can use the zelea-wiki 
for drafting. Should I setup a seperate area for the party? Which then 
would have seperate sub-areas, like Canada, Toronto, ...? Doesnt make so 
much sense, does it? Better to use the whole wiki for the party and 
later filter out non-members, imo.

- Voting-Medium: use the zelea-vote-sever.

What are your thoughts?


On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 2:53, Michael Allan wrote:
> Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
>> Michael, if I understand correctly, you're saying that there is no
>> need to choose right now between "party" and "no party" approaches,
>> and that Votorola and Transparency Party people should just work
>> together on getting a vote going in some riding on one or more
>> issues.  Is that correct?
> Thomas von der Elbe wrote:
>> Yes, I am more and more beginning to see it like this too. Party or
>> no party doesn't actually matter right now. What matters most is
>> that we together actually start to vote on a particular and well
>> chosen issue.
> Yes, since Thomas wants to.  But I can only speak for myself, not
> Votorola.  The #1 priority is that we continue working together (our
> small crew).  #2 is to give the tools a good workout, without which
> development stalls (see below).  So I think anyone who can move on 2
> without sacrificing 1 is going to lead the development forward.
> Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
>> Simplicity is key when introducing new things to people, so I
>> suggest that the initial issue(s) be ones that are already well
>> understood.  Also, since only a small percentage of people will be
>> (a) contactable by us and (b) willing to be "early adopters", we
>> will need a fairly large population to draw from in order to get
>> enough initial participants to bootstrap from.  I suspect that a
>> single riding will be too small.  Perhaps all ridings in one city
>> could be covered (Toronto seems to me the obvious choice), so that
>> in the early days when we don't have meaningful numbers in any one
>> riding we can still have meaningful totals for the city, and
>> publicizing those via city- level media will attract additional
>> participation in each riding.  (City-level media can include social
>> media: tweeters often assume that the reader is in the same city and
>> when that's untrue it's accepted and forgiven.) ...
> Technically we can handle any size/shape of jurisdiction, and just
> about any issue.  So that's all open.
> Just to be sure: the early adopters (b) won't have beta-quality tools
> to work with.  The tools are functional, but not always easy to use,
> full of features, beautiful to look at, etc.  We won't be able to fix
> that till the users confirm that all the essential pieces are in
> place.  (We need the walls, wiring and plumbing installed before we
> can hang the wallpaper, decorations, and so forth.)
> Thomas von der Elbe wrote:
>> One question remains open for me though: is it good enough, if the
>> vote-server runs under Mikes domain? People will want to have some
>> security that their votes and work will not be lost. I always
>> pictured some organizational structure which would garantee this. Is
>> there another way? If no, what priority does it have?
> If the only concern is data loss, then I think we have a solution
> already.  The backup is stored here:
> Someone just has to copy it to an independent site every so often, and
> we'll be fairly safe.
> Later, when we implement results verification, every verifier will
> have the ability to recreate a vote-server from scratch.  Meantime,
> the source code is here:
> Copy that too, and we're pretty well covered.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Votorola mailing list