[MG] Minimal start plan - inter-community network

[Michael Allan]

So here are further details of this plan, plus my reply to C.  Again,
I'm interested in hearing other plans/proposals.

REQUIREMENTS

   A. Multiple online communities, each:

          i. Communicatively competent.

         ii. Actively engaged in discussion.

        iii. Having recently discussed more-or-less the same topic,
             albeit separately.

   B. A means of introducing into any community the tools and
      practices that are necessary for consensus making.  For example,
      see: http://u.zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/Discussion_refit

   C. Discussion on the common topic resumes as a consensus making
      effort.

   D. The discussion and consensus making effort continue
      indefinitely.

   E. The effort grows in extent until it touches, at one time or
      another, all online and offline communities that share an
      interest in the topic.

ELEMENTS OF A METHOD

   F. The introduction of the tools (B) exposes the members of the
      community to a view.  The view shows three things clearly, at a
      glance:

          i. People talking about the topic with each other.

         ii. The separate communities in which they are talking.

        iii. The historical development of consensus on the topic,
             which will include:

             a) Pattern of consensus and dissensus, e.g. tree counts.

             b) Turnout vs. population size.

             c) Exent of the inter-community network within the
                overall community space.

      So this is like crossforum theatre with the old diff feed and a
      new community-space map.  (How come C's diff feed always gets
      reused, but I have to code new maps?  Help. :-)

   G. The number of active communities in F.ii must never drop below
      two.  If the user's own community is active in the consensus
      making effort, then the user will see at least one other
      community that is likewise active.

   H. The seeding of the inter-community network is coordinated by an
      outfit that is dedicated to that purpose.  They are the ones who
      ensure, for example, that requirement G is met.

   I. The home page of the outfit is comprised of view E plus the
      following contextual information:

         iv. Explanation of the goal of the outfit, namely to start
             the world's first large scale, consensus making effort.

          v. Activities of the outfit accentuated in the view by way
             of decorations, filters and so forth.  So we see where
             the individual members are active, and so forth.

         vi. Instructions on how to join.

Would these requirements be sufficient?  If so, we could start filling
in some details of the method.


conseo wrote:
> I think [the argument] is valid and gives a good idea of what is
> really needed to exploit the new perspectives of
> e-democracy. Bridging all kind of related communities is the only
> way. But I am not sure if the analytical and abstract method is
> necessarily the best. ...

I may misunderstand, but I guess some analysis would be essential to
the coordinating role of the outfit (H).

> ... Maybe it would help to become political in some way. I am
> thinking of taking some (global or large scale) issue and then bring
> our tools to groups who try to follow a similiar plan and
> act(!). Discussion happens where a problem needs to be solved. Of
> course, we can also target philosophical/academical discussions, but
> I doubt that consensus is really the goal there and no action is
> ever needed if you are a professional for theory. Ideas about issues
> would be environmental ones, like (most prominent everywhere)
> climate change. What do you think?

I agree, action is important.  I place it in F.iii and (I).  In F.iii,
the user learns that all those people in separate places are engaged
in a coordinated effort that involves a) the growth of consensus on
the topic, and b) the promise of action.  We cannot show the action
itself, as it depends on a future consensus, but we can show a
movement that is sweeping in that direction.

The topic might be political if we can pick and choose (it must meet
requirement A).  But in any case, I agree that it should be something
of consequence.

The second place is (I).  Here we do show action and (after reading
your post) I added I.v to underline it.  It is not political action
strictly speaking because it involves no power.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/



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