[Ag Meinungsfindungstool] (SMVcon) Developers cooperating withAG Meinungsfindungstool

[marc]

Hi Michael,

Now I am confused!

A) One of the main paradigms of the Pirate Party is: "If we have reached our 
goals, then there is no need for the Pirate Party anymore!"
Therefore, no - there will be not much resistance on the way towards (1), 
because the Pirate Party is more like a movement than a party. And if not, I 
will quit my membership.

B) Why do you do not want to merge Outcast and CDS?


I am still towards (1) and I don't see any reason not to be. But I guess we 
have some basic misunderstanding here.

So let's condense the goal:

a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling,
b) while the whole discourse is covered and
c) without any loss of data.


What is the point now?

Cheers
marc


-----Original Message----- 
From: Michael Allan
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 5:53 PM
To: AG Meinungsfindungstool
Cc: Votorola ; Start/Metagov ; AG Liquid Democracy
Subject: Re: [Ag Meinungsfindungstool] (SMVcon) Developers cooperating 
withAG Meinungsfindungstool

Hi Marc,

Thank you for explaining.  There's something I should have explained
myself, and warned you of earlier, but I didn't see the connection
until now.

> Yes, most of AG MFT are on this track, therefore our work is mainly
> towards cooperation! ... At least the Prototype Core Team [PCT]
> fully agrees. ... I think most of the members of our working group
> AG MFT are towards (1).

If you start to move in that direction, then I think you will meet
strong resistance from within the party.  You may already be feeling
some of it without understanding the reason.  I think I can explain:
If the users are free to express themselves as they choose, where and
when they choose, then the Pirate Party will no longer have a role to
play.  It will be finished.  (see details below)

> The PCT don't want to encourage one special implementation.  Instead
> we want to enable all participating implementations to
> collaborate. Indeed this needs an agreement on a common
> understanding of "something". ...  I would like to refer to this
> little "something" as the Common Discussion Standard (CDS). ...

Your platform for this purpose is called CDS, our's is called Outcast,
and others have other names - But again, none can succeed without
users.  I think my point still stands:

   We must be clear on this issue.  A platform (MFT CDS, Outcast,
   etc.)  cannot succeed without users.  There are two ways to obtain
   those users:

     (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus
         leveling the playing field and enabling the users to range
         freely from platform to platform.

         This is the right way.

     (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own
         platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.

         This is harmful and unnecessary, and therefore wrong.

   These are the only ways.  There are no grey areas in between.  If
   our choice is not (1), then it is (2), and no responsible engineer
   will cooperate with us.  Instead he'll point to the danger and warn
   us not to proceed.

   (1) or (2)?  What should we do?

Alex's translation again:

   Wir müssen uns darüber klar werden: Eine Plattform (MFT CDS,
   Outcast, etc.) kann ohne Benutzer nicht erfolgreich sein.  Es gibt
   nur zwei Wege Nutzer zu bekommen:

     (1) Den Netzeffekt zwischen Plattformen beseitigen, also gleiche
         Wettbewerbsbedingungen schaffen und Nutzern ermöglichen die
         Plattform jederzeit zu wechseln.

         Das ist der richtige Weg.

     (2) Sich auf Netzeffekte verlassen um alle Nutzer auf die eigene
         Plattform zu zwingen, also ein de facto Monopol zu errichten.

         Das ist schädlich und unnötig und deshalb falsch.

   Diese beiden Wege sind die einzigen Wege.  Es gibt keine
   Kompromisse zwischen diesen beiden Alternativen.  Wenn wir uns
   nicht für Weg (1) entscheiden, dann entscheiden wir uns für Weg (2)
   und kein verantwortungsvoller Ingenieur wird dann mit uns
   zusammenarbeiten.  Statt dessen wird ein solcher uns auf die
   Gefahren hinweisen und uns davor warnen weiter zu machen.

   (1) oder (2)?  Was sollten wir tun?

Here again is your proposed architecture for the Pirate Party:
http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/wiki/images/7/72/MFT_BigPicture_v01.jpg

Here CDS is [2] and Liquid Feedback [3].  If CDS obtains its users by
counter-monopoly means (1) as opposed to monopoly means (2), then the
party is finished.  The people of Germany (for example) will be able
to form and express their public opinion (position) as a whole without
being divided by separate platforms.  Decisions of the Bundestag [3]
will then be informed *directly* by that whole.  The party will no
longer have a function in this process.  It will therefore disappear
(along with other political parties).  Do you see what I mean?

This is why moving in a radical, counter-monopoly direction (1) will
face strong resistance from within the party.  No political party can
survive without (2) a monopoly over its internal mechanism of position
forming and expression.  It's impossible.

I apologize, because I knew something about this before and failed to
see the connection until now.  I thought you could simply give (1) a
thumbs up and (2) a thumbs down - end of debate - but it's not so easy
for a loyal party member to steer that course.

Mike


marc said:
> Hi Michael,
>
> You wrote:
> > Frauke and Alex,
> > Frauke said:
> >> The first question must be: in which case is it necessary to bring
> >> different tools together and why?
> >> If you can answer this question, we can go on.
>
> > We answered this already.  Cooperation is necessary in order to level
> > the playing field among platforms, prevent the formation of a de-facto
> > monopoly, and thus maintain the user's freedom of choice.  (See also
> > the German translation below.)
>
> Yes, most of AG MFT are on this track, therefore our work is mainly 
> towards
> cooperation!
>
> But I am currently more describing the position of the "Prototype Core 
> Team"
> (PCT), that is part of the working group AG MFT.
>
> > Alex said:
> >> I'm ALL IN on (1), and I think that's what the "Ontology" is all
> >> about. Its a way to map one plattform onto another, ... where
> >> plattform is called a plugin when it comes to AG
> >> Meinungsfindungstool.  But as mentioned in discussions way earlier,
> >> these plugins do not necessarily plug into something, but instead
> >> into each other, ...which means a plugin is just a plattform that
> >> uses ontologies for "Vote mirroring" :-)
>
> That is also my understanding.
>
> The PCT don't want to encourage one special implementation. Instead we 
> want
> to enable all participating implementations to collaborate. Indeed this
> needs an agreement on a common understanding of "something".
>
> I would like to refer to this little "something" as the Common Discussion
> Standard (CDS). We want to describe the CDS with the help of an Ontologie 
> to
> picture the "data" part and a Web API to cover the possible "workflows".
>
> Finally the CDS is what enables plug-ins to plug into each other.
>
> > Yes, it could be.  Let's see if the AGM engineers agree about (1) in
> > regard to all platforms, including non-AGM platforms such as Votorola.
> > Unfortunately they're confronted with a language barrier owing to my
> > lack of German.  Here's a Google translation:
> > [snipped]
> > I hope that makes sense.  If not, please correct the translation
> > errors.  Here's the original English:
>
> > It's often difficult for competitors to understand each other. But we
> > must be clear on this issue. A platform cannot succeed without users.
> > There are two ways to obtain those users:
> > (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus levelling
> > the playing field and enabling the users to range freely from
> > platform to platform.
>
> That's what I think we would like to achieve. Even if there is no chance 
> to
> eleminate the networking effects between individuals, the PCT focus more 
> on
> the interchangeability of individual implementations.
>
> > This is the right way.
>
> To be honest, I don't know if this is the right way. But it's the only one 
> I
> am aware of right now ;o)
>
> > Let's wait for the answer, as cooperation necessarily depends on it.
>
> I think most of the members of our working group AG MFT are towards (1).
>
> At least the Prototype Core Team fully agrees. So far our solution is not 
> to
> build yet another discussion/voting/collaboration/networking tool, but to
> define an environment where tools can plug in and share data and extend
> workflows. The working title for this is "d!sco" (Discussion Ontology)
> Framework.
>
> The PCT don't care much about distinct methodologies of
> discussion/voting/collaboration/networking as far as they don't influence 
> or
> concern the overall process of decision-making. The idea is to achieve an
> agreement between all participants on the Common Discussion Standard. This
> standard consists of an ontology and a web api to enable communication
> between all implementations.
>
>
> Our goal is to enable cooperation by defining a standard. This is how the
> internet succeeds. Defining a standard that everyone can implement to gain
> benefit from it. The main benefit of CDS is to obtain users and to 
> preserve
> data.
>
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Cheers
> Marc

-- 
Ag-meinungsfindungstool mailing list
Ag-meinungsfindungstool at lists.piratenpartei.de
https://service.piratenpartei.de/listinfo/ag-meinungsfindungstool