mike at zelea.com
Sat Sep 29 23:23:15 EDT 2012
> I found the claims about leadership unnecessarily bold ...
Myself, I'll probably remove those claims once the page is staged.
I'll also remove the "Inventions" and "Prototypes" links. Meantime
I'm hanging tight, waiting to see the look. Or should I edit now?
But this is one of those issues on which each of us could take action
independently if he wished, even as we continue to seek consensus.
You could publish your own version of the home page for instance. You
might keep a branch repo for this purpose, and could even stage the
page on your production trunk of the code.
You don't have to actually do this, of course, but I think it's neat
that you *could*. It shows (just one more way) how far the tools and
technology are decentered - as ofc they must be. Maybe this is where
we differ most from other projects then; we know what lengths we must
go in order to reach real people and we're not content with gestures
or simulations in that direction.
> 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
More information about the Votorola