Public autonomy the Votorola way

[Michael Allan]

Hey guys,

Here's a rough draft (very rough) of what I've been working on:
http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/G/p/vohall

All the practices in section 2 (Grow the discussion) hinge on Thomas's
idea of impersonal positions, which we've worked up into the concept
of "pipe positions".  These carry and direct votes, but contribute
none to totals.

New practices we haven't discussed before:
http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/G/p/vohall#Patch_relaying
http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/G/p/vohall#Consensus_bridging
These chatty procedures are required in order to preserve atomic
differencing (one difference per draft) and other aspects of position
space rationalization.  But chatty is good, ofc.

Also new is "pipe dreaming", which allows forum members to participate
fully without casting a vote or using the tools.  This is feasible
precisely *because* of the chattiness of practices like patch relaying
and consensus bridging.  Voting has no purpose here except to signify
membership in a discussion group, something a pipe can do just as
well.  Even initiating a patch or a consensus bridge does not
absolutely require tool use, provided the drafters are willing to do
some extra work.  So this a gentler way of easing in new users.

I'll document the practices and draw up the figures so it's clearer.
(I no longer think we need concrete examples for figures.)

> 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.

I probably overdid the theory references here.  I'll correct it later
if it's too much, or unhelpful.

> ... 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)

Thank you.  Yes, it's all trees diagrams here.  We can get truck loads
of information across with them, I agree.  They tell the whole story.

Mike


conseo said:
> 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