Can our party pick your brain?
Thomas von der Elbe
ThomasvonderElbe at gmx.de
Fri Mar 18 04:45:18 EDT 2011
Hey Kevin, yes ofc, you can send my contact information to anyone you
feel right about.
Thomas
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:41, Kevin Morais wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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/20110318/659cba5c/attachment-0007.html>
More information about the Votorola
mailing list