Public autonomy the Votorola way

[conseo]

Hey Mike,

Michael Allan wrote:
> This is a summary for G/p/c item #3: http://zelea.com/w/G/p/c
> 
>   To attain public autonomy the Votorola way: (1) pose an issue in a
>   form that is potentially actionable; (2) grow an extensive
>   discussion using transitive formal agreement and resource pledges as
>   a supporting structure; and (3) resolve the issue by redeeming the
>   pledges in a combination of collective, administrative and/or
>   electoral action.
> 
> What do you think?  Is that a good summary?  We're the only project
> that uses actionable resource pledges (including formal agreement) as
> a structural support to grow the discussion.

I think that sounds good. It might be too high-level for many people, but for 
now it is comprehensive summary what the process is about. Unfortunately all 
these terms bear meaning, so you can't express that unpolitically or only in a 
hands-on way (like crowd-sourcing). A lot can be speculated in theory and 
implemented at the same time, for that, it is a good start.

> 
> The summary itself is boring.  Here's how I propose to flesh it out:
> 
>   a) Rough out the details in procedural form ("do this, do that")
> 
>   b) Walk through it once with a real issue, but only as a dry run in
>      Sys/p/sandbox.
> 
>   c) Use the results to provide concrete examples and graphical images
>      for each procedure.  We need to show how it looks when it's done
>      correctly.
> 
>  d) Paste it into the home page.
> 
> So it's "do this, do that" with clear pictures of 'this' and 'that'.
> It has to be convincing ofc, or people aren't going to participate.
> Should we use "world peace" as the example issue?

I am ok with that. A thoughtful visualization about what is going on in the 
tree might be helpful. Your graphics for voting structures are already pretty 
easy to understand imo. (1)

conseo

(1) http://www.zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht