Can our party pick your brain?

[Kevin Morais]

Hi Thomas work has begun in Registration of the Party name, people in Ottawa
know about it now, no big deal there.  I have a friend who I believe lives
in Germany as well His name is Jan, he is studying physics, very intelligent
man.  He has offered to help with the Transparency Website and I think he is
considering joining the Party, may I send him your contact information, also
the first draft for your and others review I will post on a wiki for you to
look at, the book is writing itself Thomas.

So may I send Jan your contact information?

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Thomas von der Elbe <
ThomasvonderElbe at gmx.de> wrote:

>  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?
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
> 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:http://zelea.com/system/host/havoc/var/cache/votorola/v/
> 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: http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/votorola/
> Copy that too, and we're pretty well covered.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.reluk.ca/list/votorola/attachments/20110317/36e31647/attachment-0007.html>