(SMVcon) Developers cooperating with AG Meinungsfindungstool
Alexander Praetorius
citizen at serapath.de
Fri Mar 8 13:57:19 EST 2013
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> 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)
>
[alex]
That's the long term goal of the pirate party ;-)
I dont think that pirates do politics for fun, its just a necessity.
[/alex]
>
> > 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?
>
[alex]
That's the sole purpose of the pirate party, to vanish! :-)
[/alex]
>
> 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.
>
[alex]
That's why the pirates wont oppose it, because it's goal is to vanish!
[/alex]
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Votorola mailing list
> Votorola at zelea.com
> http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola
>
--
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
***********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/attachments/20130308/539a0460/attachment.html>
More information about the Votorola
mailing list