Thomas von der Elbe
ThomasvonderElbe at gmx.de
Fri Sep 28 04:20:42 EDT 2012
What is wrong here?
The diff shows 2 differences but on the drafts only one is highlighted.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 0:59, conseo wrote:
> Hey Mike,
> I found the claims about leadership unnecessarily bold and tried to open the
> perspective on our applications as well as the consensual universal aspect
> while keeping your practical emphasis on public voting infrastructure as well
> as adding the grassroots economical aspect (making clear that we implement
> practical hands-on technology already and not something depending on the
> official political institutions or processes).
> We don't know whether cooperatives or protest groups (or some crazy hackers)
> somewhere have found a better invention in the field (some solutions seem to
> be very local). Our competitors also might prove to be innovative. Anyway I
> see little substance in formulating the claim itself in this important text
> snippet, people can directly see the inventions below the introduction and I
> think they speak for themselves (esp. once staged) in this very sense. For
> the concept of our software, which needs to be used to prove the benefits of
> the inventions (outreach, ovn, harvesting diff-urls), I would stress the
> practical applications for each individual user/voter.
> I could imagine adding a sentence or two to the introduction about the
> openness of OVN as a reflection and production on the consensual and
> emancipative approach we take. The 'non-exclusive' references that already.
> This might be too much though.
> Besides these textual changes it might be nice to add footnotes to the
> implicitly mentioned inventions in the introduction to give a quick jumping
> point to make the connection to the actual code clearer.
> Thomas what do you think?
> (1) http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/D?a=5941&b=5273
> Votorola mailing list
> Votorola at zelea.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Votorola