[Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Helping the Pirate Party to vanish

[marc]

Hi Michael,

You wrote:
> Marc and Alex,
> Marc said:
>> B) Why do you do not want to merge Outcast and CDS?
>
> Thank you, I do.  We just have to finish clarifying how the merged
> platform is going to obtain its users.  Again, either we (1) eliminate
> network effects and enable the users to range freely across all
> platforms, including competitors; or (2) rely on network effects to
> force all users onto the single, merged platform.

I am not talking about merging plattforms - there should plenty of them 
exist. The trick is to make them cooperate by sharing data and enhancing the 
processes one another.

>> 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?
>
> I agree with (a), but why restrict the user's choice to (b) and (c)?
> Suppose user U needs a toolset that covers only part of the discourse,
> or part of the data.  Why not give U the same freedom as others to
> choose according to personal need, or preference?  Who would have the
> authority to say, "No, that choice is not permitted".

That's not what I wanted to express. The user should not be restricted in 
any way, but can choose whatever toolset he wants, using whatever data he 
wants. Even if not any transition between tools might be reasonable in the 
context of the discourse.

In my honest opinion (a) is already in place today. Everyone is free to use 
the toolset of his free choice. But one big thing missing now is the 
availability of the data. When it comes to changing the tools, the move of 
already entered data is mainly the problem. And to be honest, I don't want 
to enter the data again, just because I switched the tool, do you?


Therefore (b) and (c) is more the responsibility of the tools to ensure that 
the user has all the freedom within the discourse and no restrictions at 
all!
Therefore (b) and (c) are not a restriction to the user! It is quite the 
contrary, it allows for the freedom of choice!


So let me put it in a slightly different way with keeping the explanation 
above in mind:

a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling,
b) within the context of a discourse
c) and without any loss of data.


Does this make sense to you?


Cheers
marc