Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[Michael Allan]

Hi Alex,

> > If no second party were willing to help, then we might create a
> > new party.
> 
> yes, BUT :-) ...to build a party and trust, so that many people are
> willing to vote for it is a very tough thing to do. ...

The parties we need are relatively easy to obtain.  (We're speaking
here of Germany, or other states with proportional representation.)
We need formal parties empty of all party content.  Call these "open
parties".  We want the party name to appear on the ballot on election
day, that's all.  These open parties will all share the same leader
and candidate list as determined through the open primaries.  On
election day, a given elector may vote for any one of the open
parties, and the effect will be the same regardless.  It's not really
a vote for a party at all, but rather for the candidate list and
leader (the would-be Chancellor or Bundeskanzler) that were previously
agreed in the open primaries.  Do you see?

All we have to build are the open primaries.  We do that using the
primary toolsets.  By mirroring the primary votes across all toolsets,
we ensure the primaries are truly open; not belonging to any party
organization.

> ... I am very happy, that the pirates exist. Luckily, the pirates
> are a kind of "anti party" :-)

Their role is to vanish, I think you said.  But the open parties I
just described are already vanished.

> > But the actual toolset doesn't matter so much.
> 
> NO! ...IT DOES MATTER A LOT!  It's very true, that its extremly
> important to break the network effect and enable people to move
> freely between tools, but in order for people to actually USE ANY
> Tool AT ALL ..  there have to be NON-CRAPPY Tools.  All i have seen
> until today, is total crap!

Toolset user interfaces (UIs) are expensive.  Before coding them, we
need to be certain of the design, which means being certain of the
practice that's to be supported by the tools.  No practice for
e-democracy has yet been fully developed.  (Maybe Votorola is the
closest, but it's not good enough.)  That's why you don't see
production toolsets yet.

> > > ... So in order to make open toolset plattforms interesting,
> > > there has to be at least ONE party, which supports them ...
> >
> > At least two, I think.  We'll eliminate the network effect that
> > binds the users to the bigger toolset/party.
> 
> there must be the elimination of the network effect, but before it
> can work in practice, there must be pressure [from the Pirate Party]
> to force others tools into that kind of thinking.  ...

;^) The pressure's too much for Votorola.  We surrender!

> > In order to demonstrate this, however, we require at least two
> > parties.  Immediately both parties will be destroyed *as parties*.
> > That's necessary, because otherwise nothing changes and the world
> > just yawns. ;^)
> 
> I don't think anything will happen immediately.  I agree with all u
> have said in the long term, but in the short term, its all about
> people and their observations which eventually lead to changes of
> habits, but that takes time. ...  From the perspective of a "sales
> person" (even if no money is involved at all), the sales person has
> to offer something.  What is it that could be offered in terms of
> immediate solutions? ...

An open executive primary, for one.  German citizens may start
reaching consensus on Chancellor (Bundeskanzler), Foreign Minister
(Bundesminister des Auswärtigen) and thousands of other direct and
indirect appointments of the Chancellor's office.  That's never
happened before.  It cannot happen until we eliminate the network
effect between two primary toolsets, and invite others to join.

> ... It has to start with something small. It has to solve some
> problem but it has to solve it better than all the other
> alternatives out there.  its then possible to add a second thing
> that will be solved equally awesome and then a third... and so
> forth.

Yes, I think that's how it will go.

> there was an assumption.  IF two parties join THEN they will be
> destroyed.  ...but how do you get even a single party to join in in
> the first place?  ...

As mentioned, they need not be real parties.  Two paper parties with
no members are sufficient.  There must be two primary toolsets behind
them, of course, but that's not much of a barrier.  A single developer
can code the vote translations for both toolsets if necessary.

> > True, [the open parties] can expect to receive more votes in the
> > next election, but never again can a party candidate *as such* be
> > elected to office.  The open parties all share the same candidate
> > list, which they discuss and vote using their primary toolsets.
>
> yes, but thats again long term vision.  in the beginning that will
> not be the case i believe.  The pirates will use the toolset to vote
> for its issues and its candidates.  Then maybe, because many people
> join that plattform, because they have more power than with the
> traditional approach, it might grow and sooner or later the network
> effect might kick in.

The primary network effect started in the late 1800s.  It's been going
strong ever since.  It keeps the Union coalition and the SPD in power
in Germany, and other powerful parties around the world.  Maybe the
Pirate Party can eventually destroy the SPD and join the duopoly, but
that's as far as it can go.  No party *as such* can possibly do what a
lone developer armed with two paper parties can do; namely destroy the
network effect that keeps that duopoly in power.

> ...thats the latest point where other party will start to use the
> same tools too in order to survive.  So this is the moment where you
> have your SECOND PARTY or even a third and so forth...

No, I think we're already there.  The parties are the Union coalition,
the SPD and (let's say) the Pirates.  All three run closed primaries,
like any other party.  The situation is already ripe for change.

> > Likewise, the open parties all share the same leader.  The leader
> > has no authority as such within the parties.  His/her only
> > function is to become Chancellor when the parties win the federal
> > election - then to make a huge number of official appointments,
> > directly and indirectly.
>
> dont understand what you are talking about here :-)

It's the open executive primary:
http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/power_structuring

> > Those appointments too are discussed and voted using the primary
> > toolsets years in advance of the election.  This attracts users, and
> > this is where the party system starts to seriously fall apart.
> 
> maybe, but i cant really understand what you are saying here.
> 
> > Those users are not going to turn around and vote for a
> > conventional party on election day.
>
> yes, this is the phenomenon that will eventually kick in the network
> effect, to force all the other parties, to join the "open system".
> thats what i was trying to say, maybe from a slightly different
> perspective??? :-)

Except I'm describing a much faster mechanism, I think.

> > The party system as a whole is not seriously shaken until the
> > primary toolsets start to gain users.
> 
> how will it start? :-)

Suppose it starts in Anglo-America.  It's easier there, because no
open parties are required.  Here's how:

  1. Eliminate the network effect between two primary electoral
     toolsets, e.g. by vote mirroring.

  2. Announce the world's first open executive primary, together with
     an open assembly primary for legislative seats.

  3. Improve the toolsets to the point where developers can operate
     them.  Only developers are needed at first.

  4. Resources start coming in.  A trickle at first, then a flood.
     Everyone wants to be a part of history in the making.

It's a little more difficult in places that use proportional
representation like Germany, because we need those open pseudo-parties
along with the toolsets.  So there's added paperwork and expense that
isn't needed in the US, Britain, Canada, etc (maybe France too, but
I'm less certain.)  Still, that's no major obstacle.

> I am a software developer (i have a java background, i am not so
> experienced, i offered my javascript skills) A software developer is
> nothing that you are currently searching for, at least thats what
> the "job vacancys" seem to imply.

Votorola is always open to developers (and others), but currently we
don't have the resources to supervise less experienced developers.
They have to be self starters.

> It'll snowball, but in order to start snowballing, there must be
> some kind of product, which really solves something of importance in
> a very efficient way.  Votorola does effectively solve everything,
> but if you would really use it in practice, it would be very slow,
> because currently it is only a proof of concept and a broad vision,
> but not an efficient solution for every day life. It cannot start as
> a efficient solution to ALL ASPECTS which are encompassed by the
> votorola vision from the beginning, it can evolve into that stepp by
> step but has to start with ONE PROBLEM at the time and try to solve
> that very well.  This first problem must be chosen well, because
> there has to be a strategic perspective to grow this tiny piece into
> the full blown vision :-)

Yes, I think so.  The easiest and most exciting start-up is via the
electoral primaries (1-4 above), especially the executive one.
Votorola can't easily start that alone.  We need to cooperate with at
least one other primary toolset.

Otherwise, we do the normative start-up (legislative bills, and that
kind of thing).  They're more difficult because the practice is more
complicated and needs elaborate trials.  It's those trials that will
eventually pull in the resources, once we get into full swing.

Both types of open primary (electoral and normative) are required, but
the initial kick will probably come from one or the other, as you say.

> What is the network effect? :-)
> A network effect will only exist if there is an inside and an
> outside.  If all are within and structures are as everyone wishes
> they were, there will be no network effect.
> A network effect can be seen at least from two perspectives.
> ...1. it sucks aways everything into something that i am not part of
> ...2. it brings everything into ONE and i am part of and therefor
> things are no longer devided.
>
> ... So the best possible thing one could possibly achive is to move
> forward but stay OPEN, so that others can join in.  This way, you
> use all your strength to create a network effect (and so will
> others).
>
> ... The difference is, if YOU succeed, then all others can join you
> and will not loose their investments or at least only their selfish
> investments.  This might also be exactly WHY you win and can create
> the network effect, because you follow a vision that encompasses
> everyones best interest and not only your own best interest.

I won't answer here yet, because you didn't fully understand what I
propose.  It's something more immediate, as I explained above.

Mike


Alexander Praetorius said:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> 
> > Alex and Marc,
> >
> > Alex said:
> > > > It will happen fast.  Enabling people to move freely among toolset
> > > > platforms (by a solution we haven't yet discussed), will
> > > > necessarily enable them to move among political parties *without
> > > > political consequences*.  This will destroy the party system.
> > >
> > > ... I feel the same.  Once, people can move freely among toolset
> > > plattforms, this will be the case, but at least in germany, the
> > > pirate party, as a toolset plattform in itself, will probably be the
> > > only political party, which is open to such a solution. ...
> >
> > If no second party were willing to help, then we might create a new
> > party.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, BUT :-)
> ...to build a party and trust, so that many people are willing to vote for
> it is a very tough thing to do.
> I am very happy, that the pirates exist. Luckily, the pirates are a kind of
> "anti party" :-)
> Its a worldwide movement. If u ask people in any country if they know this
> or that political party,
> they probably will only have heard about it, if its a party which is active
> in their own country,
> or if its "republicans" or "democrats", because everyone knows the major
> parties of the USA.
> ..or ... its the pirate party :-)
> ...that says SOMETHING.
> The pirates are the political aspect of the open source movement.
> The pirate party was born online and its motor is the "spirit of the web"
> ...metaphorically spoken :P
> 
> 
> 
> > We could equip it with a position-forming (primary) toolset of
> > its own, preferably something different than the Pirates are currently
> > prototyping.  Votorola is available for this purpose, for instance.
> >
> 
> 
> YES and NO.
> In order to work, pieces must fit together.
> And there is at least ONE major gap, an thats the coupling device :-)
> Human-Computer-Interface must neatly fit together and currently it's far
> from that point.
> 
> what i see in votorola is two fold:
> 1. it's a lovely vision
> 2. it's a "proof of concept".
> 
> but it's NOT a product ...yet.
> There's many aspects to a real product.
> The reason why linux did never succeed in becoming mainstream is, that its
> not a product.
> (and products dont have to cost money!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > But the actual toolset doesn't matter so much.
> 
> 
> 
> NO! ...IT DOES MATTER A LOT!
> It's very true, that its extremly important to break the network effect and
> enable people to move freely
> between tools, but in order for people to actually USE ANY Tool AT ALL ..
> there have to be NON-CRAPPY Tools.
> All i have seen until today, is total crap!
> Sure, there is adhocracy, there is liquid feedback, there is vilfredo,
> there is onethousandandone toolsets,
> but they all SUCK!
> They can do what they can and are somehow interesting and proof of concept,
> ... but there is a reason,
> why people in reality use EMAIL LISTS and WIKIS and eventually ETHERPADS
> and MUMBLE and the like.
> There is a reason, why you are NOT ABLE to use Votorola and some kind of
> voting/delegation mechanism
> to replace the job offers or "wants" you currently search for the votorola
> project.
> 
> Votorola is great and there is a reason why i'm sticking to all this,
> because i believe in the vision.
> But all it currently does is stealing peoples time. Its not usable and its
> the same with all the other tools out there.
> They are impractical and currently only of "scientific use".
> If you want to know what is needed, look at how mainstream people currently
> actually REALLY solve their problems.
> It's email
> It's wikis
> It's telephon/skype/mumble
> It's linkedIn/facebook&co.
> It's twitter
> It's google calendar and the like
> ....
> 
> There are so many tools, which all solve "one aspect" of what people need.
> 
> And because people use a huge variety of devices (mobile, desktop)
> (windows, linux, android, mac osx, ...)
> and they have to work together... html5 as technology in itself is, in my
> opinion, the only way-to-go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > What matters is that
> > we enable the individual users (members) to range freely across
> > toolsets/parties and settle where they prefer.
> >
> 
> 
> YES, BUT :-)
> in order for tools to open up...
> in order for tools to be used by people AT ALL...
> there have to be AWESOME TOOLS, but i cant see those.
> And with "awesome", i dont refer to functionality, but to user experience
> and ease of use and stuff like that.
> This is not about bling and bells and whistles, but its about looking at
> peoples problems.
> Whats their problems and how do they currently solve those.
> 
> Thats the "place" where you have to pick them up.
> 
> I dont know if the USA currently has a playground where people could be
> easily picked up to use such tools which currently do not exist yet,
> but in germany and some other countries, that playground is the pirate
> party.
> 
> There are so many working groups in the pirate party and some of them with
> hundreds of members and active people.
> But you could also start with metagovernment itself.
> what do we use? MAILINGLIST + WIKI
> 
> Can people like content or vote for content on-the-fly when it comes up on
> the mailinglist? NO
> Does stuff which is said in skype or mumble find its way into the wiki
> automatically? NO
> Is it easy to create an ISSUE (like development of software) and let people
> spent ressources on it? NO
> (at least u did not succeed with the "wants" or job offers which you have
> posted)
> 
> So the tools doesnt even work for ourselves, how is it supposed to work for
> others???
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > > ... So in order to make open toolset plattforms interesting, there
> > > has to be at least ONE party, which supports them ...
> >
> > At least two, I think.  We'll eliminate the network effect that binds
> > the users to the bigger toolset/party.
> 
> 
> 
> there must be the elimination of the network effect, but before it can work
> in practice,
> there must be pressure to force others tools into that kind of thinking.
> This pressure can be build, if there is at least ONE AWESOME TOOLSET,
> which is actually USED IN PRACTICE, by A LOT OF PEOPLE (e.g. the pirates)
> to successfully solve REAL ISSUES :-)
> BECAUSE: This will use the network effect to build up pressure to force all
> the other tools
> into abandoning the network effect alltogether :-)
> 
> So whats important is, that whichever awesome tool leads, it must stay open
> all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> > In order to demonstrate this,
> > however, we require at least two parties.  Immediately both parties
> > will be destroyed *as parties*.  That's necessary, because otherwise
> > nothing changes and the world just yawns. ;^)
> >
> 
> I don't think anything will happen immediately.
> I agree with all u have said in the long term, but in the short term,
> its all about people and their observations which eventually lead to
> changes of habits,
> but that takes time.
> 
> The question is not so much about two parties using the system and once the
> avalanche
> has been started, it can never be stopped (thats trivial), its more about
> how to get
> two parties to use it or at least one and later maybe a second party.
> 
> >From the perspective of a "sales person" (even if no money is involved at
> all), the sales person has to offer something.
> What is it that could be offered in terms of immediate solutions? what
> problems can be solved TODAY with toolsets or votorla?
> I say NONE, and thats the problem.
> 
> It has to start with something small. It has to solve some problem but it
> has to solve it better than all the other alternatives out there.
> its then possible to add a second thing that will be solved equally awesome
> and then a third... and so forth.
> 
> Sooner or later the network effect might kick in, but thats not a problem,
> because metagovernment and its member projects are committed
> to stay open and will never exploit the network effect, instead there will
> be a helpful attitude towards everyone who wants to join.
> 
> 
> 
> > If the Pirates cannot stomach this (it's a bitter pill to swallow),
> > then we might create two new parties expressly for this purpose.
> >
> 
> A person only has a limited lifespan. Lets be generous and let that be 100
> years.
> How long will it take to create two new parties and create that traction
> which pirates currently build up?
> Is there other people out there who are so ambitious to found a new party?
> ...if so, why do only the pirates exist?
> What if the pirates may grow frustrated and end their commitment, will it
> be likely to create another two parties?
> ...probably now, because why wont those two new parties fail when the
> pirates did?
> 
> Sure, in the long run, the open source movement will break through
> mainstream, and it might take a year or 10 or 100...
> ...the question is not if, but how to do it in the fastest possible way, so
> that eventually we can see it with our own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > > ... so people eventually vote for the pirates in order to get the
> > > results of the open toolset plattforms into laws, which might force
> > > the other parties to open up too, and as soon as they do, the party
> > > system will be destroyed. ...
> >
> > Yes, but already the demonstration above has politically destroyed the
> > two parties.
> 
> 
> there was an assumption.
> IF two parties join
> THEN they will be destroyed.
> ...but how do you get even a single party to join in in the first place?
> The pirates might be the first party and eventually the network effect
> might force a second or third party in.
> 
> 
> 
> > True, they can expect to receive more votes in the next
> > election, but never again can a party candidate *as such* be elected
> > to office.  The open parties all share the same candidate list, which
> > they discuss and vote using their primary toolsets.
> 
> 
> yes, but thats again long term vision.
> in the beginning that will not be the case i believe.
> The pirates will use the toolset to vote for its issues and its candidates.
> Then maybe, because many people join that plattform, because they have more
> power than with the traditional approach,
> it might grow and sooner or later the network effect might kick in.
> ...thats the latest point where other party will start to use the same
> tools too in order to survive.
> So this is the moment where you have your SECOND PARTY or even a third and
> so forth...
> 
> In the beginning, each party will vote for their candidates and their
> issues and at that point,
> it will be "the old traditional structures" (silo structure) modeled in a
> new environment, which is the plattform and its toolsets.
> So even if the actual structure (voting on issues and candidates) is still
> the same, the (silo structure) is gone!
> 
> AND THAT WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END of the old system :-)
> Because now people can communicate across parties and try to "steal
> subtrees of voters" for a common issue instead for the old red team vs blue
> team thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > So the elected
> > candidates are independent of all parties.  (If it's the Pirates then,
> > you see how quickly you are destroyed as a party.  No Pirate *as such*
> > will ever again be elected to office.  You commit to that.)
> >
> 
> 
> No, i think this view is correct, but slightly biased.
> There might be several "phases of transition"
> At first, people might use toolsets and do everything the way they are used
> to,
> and they will exactly use it because it enables them to do everything they
> way are used to,
> but only slightly better or with less effort.
> Even in this phase, different pirates will be elected and different issues
> will be voted for,
> because ALL pirates participate or at least more than during the "old days".
> Then other pirates might use the same tooling and use it in the old way,
> but ...
> ..what comes with it, is the option for every participant to move freely
> between parties
> and hence people, no matter if pirates or democrats or republicans or
> whatever might still be elected,
> but if they are, its for what they, as persons stand for or what their
> skillset is and NOT because of who they know
> or what party they are member of.
> So the parties as such (in the sense of blue team vs red team) will have no
> effect anymore, and if pirates or republicans or democrats
> will get elected, its not for the blue team vs red team reason anymore,
> because those boundaries will have been blurred beyond recognition
> 
> 
> 
> > Likewise, the open parties all share the same leader.  The leader has
> > no authority as such within the parties.  His/her only function is to
> > become Chancellor when the parties win the federal election - then to
> > make a huge number of official appointments, directly and indirectly.
> >
> 
> dont understand what you are talking about here :-)
> 
> 
> 
> > Those appointments too are discussed and voted using the primary
> > toolsets years in advance of the election.  This attracts users, and
> > this is where the party system starts to seriously fall apart.
> 
> 
> maybe, but i cant really understand what you are saying here.
> 
> 
> > Those
> > users are not going to turn around and vote for a conventional party
> > on election day.
> 
> 
> yes, this is the phenomenon that will eventually kick in the network effect,
> to force all the other parties, to join the "open system".
> thats what i was trying to say, maybe from a slightly different
> perspective??? :-)
> 
> 
> 
> > They will instead vote for one of the open parties
> > (no matter which, the effect is always exactly the same) and that too
> > will be known years in advance of the election.  Anyway, this how we
> > figured it.
> >
> > So two parties (as such) are destroyed immediately.
> 
> 
> No, i dont think so.
> I dont think there will be NEW open parties out of NOWHERE and there wont
> be multiples of them.
> It will be existing parties who adopt toolsets and hopefully ones that are
> commited to the "breaking the network effect" approach.
> One of those parties might be the pirates (when it comes to germany), but
> the green party or others are equally good.
> Once, ONE relevant political party (no matter if its the new pirates or
> already established greens or whatsoever),
> has adopted the system, and it really SOLVES a REAL PROBLEM for the party
> members, then its very likely,
> that more people will use it and eventually the party will be more open and
> will come to better solutions and will start to grow
> and the network effect might kick in.
> ...this will make other parties vanish, BUT of course, they dont want to
> vanish, so they adopt the same system.
> ...and now, superficially, it looks as if nothing has changed.
> It's still the same parties as before and they still vote for their issues
> and their candidates the same way they were used to during the old days.
> (and from the top down perspective) ...thats the leaders perspective, it
> will look like as if nothing has changed, only a "new tool" underneath.
> 
> ...but from the bottom up (means from a regular voters perspectives) it
> will be a new world.
> The old structures, which are still effective will be effective for the
> time it will take for HABITS TO FADE when they are not enforced any longer.
> The REAL BOUNDARIES are gone and thus, the habits of blue team vs red team
> will fade... might take some months, maybe some years,
> but people will start to build ad hoc cross party alliances, which will be
> ISSUE BASED instead of blue team vs red team based.
> 
> Thats who parties will be destroyed. Their RELEVANCE will FADE :-) ...it
> wont happen over night, but it will happen for sure.
> 
> THATs how i see it.
> 
> 
> 
> > The party system
> > as a whole is not seriously shaken until the primary toolsets start to
> > gain users.
> 
> 
> how will it start? :-)
> 
> 
> > The timing depends, therefore, on how many developers we
> > can attract to push the toolsets into beta.
> 
> 
> I am a software developer (i have a java background, i am not so
> experienced, i offered my javascript skills)
> A software developer is nothing that you are currently searching for, at
> least thats what the "job vacancys" seem to imply.
> 
> 
> 
> > But if we attract just a
> > few more developers, then that'll be a vote of confidence in what we
> > predict, and we'll attract more on that basis.  It'll snowball.
> >
> 
> 
> It'll snowball, but in order to start snowballing, there must be some kind
> of product, which really solves something of importance in a very efficient
> way.
> Votorola does effectively solve everything, but if you would really use it
> in practice, it would be very slow, because currently it is only a proof of
> concept and a broad vision, but not an efficient solution for every day
> life. It cannot start as a efficient solution to ALL ASPECTS which are
> encompassed by the votorola vision from the beginning, it can evolve into
> that stepp by step but has to start with ONE PROBLEM at the time and try to
> solve that very well.
> This first problem must be chosen well, because there has to be a strategic
> perspective to grow this tiny piece into the full blown vision :-)
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Can anyone see a flaw?  Please point to anything that seems doubtful.
> >
> 
> Yes, i pointed out everything that came to my mind.
> I dont see a flaw, i think you've said somehow the same as i did, but it
> might be slightly different perspectives or maybe distortions caused by
> one's personal "colored glasses" :-)
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > > Which is the "election methods list"?
> > > I'd like to join that list :-)
> >
> > Here it is, Alex.
> > http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/
> 
> 
> 
> thanks, have done so.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > Marc said:
> > > I am not sure about the speed things will fall apart. But in general
> > > it will happen.  And YES - let's move forward into this direction
> > > with joined forces.
> > >
> > > We are already on the same track, but we need to shape our minds.
> > >
> > > Let's do it!
> >
> > Good!  I see no problem with the standards for porting user data that
> > you described.  I don't think we'll get stuck on those.  I'm more
> > concerned about the method of eliminating the network effect.  I think
> > there's only one feasible method, but I want to hear your thoughts.
> >
> 
> 
> What is the network effect? :-)
> A network effect will only exist if there is an inside and an outside.
> If all are within and structures are as everyone wishes they were, there
> will be no network effect.
> A network effect can be seen at least from two perspectives.
> ...1. it sucks aways everything into something that i am not part of
> ...2. it brings everything into ONE and i am part of and therefor things
> are no longer devided.
> 
> So if there is an OPEN PLATFORM, with many toolsets that could be easily
> substituted by one another,
> ... what exactly is that?
> You could say we already have such a thing, it's called the web standards
> or maybe basic stuff like
> the protocols stacked above one another in an OSI model way, where one
> layer is stacked above another.
> 
> a few decades back, people thought: "if only everything was open and we
> could all use an underlying method",
> then people could move more freely between software, because there would
> not be a network effect because of protocols and stuff.
> 
> same with languages. If you speak english, you can much more easily move in
> the english speaking part of the world than you could without.
> The better translation services become (maybe we might soon end up with a
> BABEL FISH), the easier it will become to even move in parts of the world
> where you dont speak language (this is a vote-mirroring-machanism)
> => What you say in your language, will be translated into their language
> 
> So the best possible thing one could possibly achive is to move forward but
> stay OPEN, so that others can join in.
> This way, you use all your strength to create a network effect (and so will
> others).
> 
> The difference is, if YOU succeed, then all others can join you and will
> not loose their investments or at least only their selfish investments.
> This might also be exactly WHY you win and can create the network effect,
> because you follow a vision that encompasses everyones best interest and
> not only your own best interest.
> 
> Its a lot harder to think about a vision or a solution that will be in
> everyones best interest in the long run, but if you manage to do so, you
> have a huge advantage over all the other approaches.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> ***********************************************
> Alexander Praetorius
> Rappstraße 13
> D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main
> Germany
> *[skype] *alexander.praetorius
> *[mail] *citizen at serapath.de <alexander.praetorius at serapath.de>
> *[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
> ***********************************************