[MG] Minimal start plan - inter-community network

[Michael Allan]

Thomas and Ed,

Thomas wrote:
> So I do agree with Alexander on this.  But nevertheless I also agree
> with Mike and Conseo, that it would give a boost to the whole thing,
> if several communities were involved in a consensus-finding-effort
> and if they would know of each other. I mean, the whole
> crossforum-design was inspired by this idea, wasnt it?

Yes and no.  It was inspired by crossforum ranging, which needed tool
supports: http://u.zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/Crossforum_ranging
But I don't suggest we go with crossforum ranging.  It's too contrived
and fails to address what's needed for sustained growth.  Sustained
growth appears to depend on network effects.

Network effects figure in that essay you sent by Wiersma.  I disagree
with some of what he writes.  His focus on "critical mass" is
misleading.  I think the *quality* of interactions matters more than
the quantity or density.  On the other hand, I agree that expectations
of growth are crucial and I think he also mentions this.  Overall he
seems to be in the right ballpark with network effects, and it's
surprising we missed it. *

> I didnt picture a seperate community-space map, just a headline over
> each speech-bubble from which forum/community it comes. But I admit
> a seperate map for that sounds compelling.

Yes.  The problem space is an inter-community space and that's what we
need to show in view F.  So we can't use the votespace map: **
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/crossforum/vote/_/3.xht

Our first-time viewer will be brought to view F because of her
membership in an active community, i.e. one that is using the
consensus making tools.  The problem for growth and maintenance is the
failure of that activity to extend to other communities.  This failure
cannot be seen or addressed from votespace.

For example: We know our viewer is a member of an active community
(a).  Suppose she is not herself active.  Further, suppose she is a
member of a second community (b) that is not active at all.  She looks
into community space and sees (a) active, (e) active and (b) not
active.  The idea occurs to her, "I could extend activity to (b)."

    *(a)*  (b)   (c)
                        network extent: 40%
        (d)  *(e)*

Something like that might be sufficient to catalyze a "low mass" but
nevertheless "critical" reaction.  The minimal "critical mass" in this
case would consist of four active participants split between (a) and
(e), or even less if we allow for the interventions of the outfit (H).
 
> > 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 feel that Metagov would be the natural home of this outfit.

If others agree, then why not?

Ed wrote:
> Would it be conceivable for the communities to be focused on the same  
> topic but fervently opposed to each other?
> 
> For example, on the topic of abortion (which is extremely  
> controversial at least here in the United States), there are several  
> vibrant communities on each side of the issue, plus numerous other  
> communities which have sub-groups discussing one side or the other, or  
> sometimes both.
> 
> I have always felt that most of this "debate" is spurred by political  
> parties, and that a real synthesis-driven effort could bring about  
> some important consensuses in this realm.

That makes sense.  Some of the irrational antics (even violence) of
that "debate" may stem from frustration at being unable to express
solutions in a legitimate form.  So framing it as piece of
participative legislation (for example) might draw off much of that
poison.

All yesterday I was going around in circles looking for a way to get
started on something like this.  Eventually I ended up with a list of
design problems.  These are both technical and organizational, and the
two are intertwined: **

DESIGN PROBLEMS
---------------
   1. What view can meet the requirements of F, plus the following
      additional requirement?

         iv. Support self-seeding of the inter-community network by
             the ad-hoc efforts of its members, rather than by the
             organized interventions of the outfit (H).

      The network must grow independently at some point, and that
      point must be reached before the resources of the outfit are
      over extended or otherwise exhausted.  So it makes sense to
      identify the mechanisms of internal growth and tap into them as
      early as possible.

   2. What forms of intervention are likely to be required by the
      outfit (H) depite the self-seeding mechanisms of 1?

      Until we know the expected functions of the outfit, we cannot
      design its structure.

   3. How augment the view to meet the requirements of I, plus the
      following additional requirement?

         iv. Support for the interventions of 2, including:

             a) Warning system to show where and when intervention is
                needed.

             b) Tracking system to show interventions that are in
                progress.

             c) Audit system to show location and intensity of past
                interventions.  Together with F.iii, this should
                provide a measure of efficacy,

If we solve these problems, then I think we'll have a complete
design for the method.  Or did I miss something?

DESIGN PROBLEMS (solved)
---------------
   4. How are the community members to be exposed to view F?

      This is a difficult problem.  The current practice of discussion
      refit exposes the members to the difference bridge alone.
      Here's a band-aid solution:

          i. Embed a link at the top of each discussion thread
             pointing to view F.

         ii. Give F a distinctive icon that is prominently displayed
             in the view itself.

        iii. Link from the difference bridge to view F, using the
             distinctive icon.

Thomas von der Elbe wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 10:17, Michael Allan wrote:
> > Would these requirements be sufficient?  If so, we could start filling
> > in some details of the method.
> 
> Some details:
> 

> - the switch between the maps (btw maybe something for Azhar?) is a
> tricky thing for me to imagine. How will it behave if I zoom into
> Germany with geo-map, then switch to the community-map, zoom into
> one community and then switch to the social map and zoom into one
> branch ...  Should they all be interconnected so that they remember
> the previous zoom or not?
> 
> - adding the voting feature to the social map is essential imo.

For me, I can't clearly see what to code unless I'm using the tools in
a realistic context.  Then I need to let the problems surface and get
a feel for them.  Context also helps because sometimes it contains
elements of the solution that just aren't obvious until they're in
front of my nose.


  * Wybo Wiersma.  201?.  A global advisory parliament integrated with
    the social Web: why it would improve legislative functioning and
    how it could attain critical mass.  Not yet published.
    http://tinyurl.com/3wmethy

    His exclusive focus on voting seems too narrow.  Going "critical"
    is likely to require a conjunction of media in which discussion
    and drafting figure as prominently as voting.  Voting is the
    measure of consensus, but not the means of consensus.

    He argues that the institution of public consensus (or "online
    global advisory parliament") is likely to be independent of
    constitutional government and political parties (pp 3-4) and my
    own analysis points to the same conclusion.  I disagree however
    that it could have a merely advisory role.  A public consensus
    that manages to form and to maintain itself will be more of a
    guide than an advisor.  This is guaranteed by the electoral
    provisions of the constitution, as well as the day-to-day,
    practical need of government for legitimacy.

    More on Wiersma here: http://wybowiersma.net/

 ** Previous sections of the proposal are in the wiki:
    http://metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/Seeding_an_inter-community_network

-- 
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