Votorola and AG MFT

[Michael Allan]

Hi Marc,

Marc said:
> (1) Is there a Votorola instance running somewhere out in the field
> already?

Yes, in prototype.  If you run Chrome or Firefox, for example, you can
see a piece of it running atop the home page.  All the facilities
marked (a, b or +) are running: http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/t

> (2) Who is the audience of Votorola?

As a technological project: thinkers.  As a technical facility: it's
supposed to be useable by anyone, and to interface effectively with
all non-users who speak in public forums.  By "effectively", I mean it
should hardly matter whether a person uses it formally, or leaves that
to others; informal speech should usually be enough.

> (3) How - if at all - does Votorola proof the quality of results
> (consensus)?

Basically everything is public.  I guess it's roughly similar to
LiquidFeedback in this.  The idea is that anyone can recount the votes
and reproduce the reported results.  See "verification interface":
http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/t/Votorola_vote-server

E.g. all votes from the reference server are published here:
http://zelea.com/system/host/obsidian/home/v/votorola/out/vocount/_snap_report/_in_vote/

> (4) Isn't consensus a *kind* of decision result?

Not by definition, though they can be related in practice.
"Consensus" means general agreement in English, while a "decision"
means a definite, authoritative resolution of an issue.

One important difference between the two is that every consensus is
actual in the lifeworld, being an informal condition of everyday
society, whereas a decision can be (and often is) just a formality of
the system; an organized, administrative result.  Generally there is
no necessary connection between consensus on an issue and decision on
the same issue, and the one may exist without the other, or even in
contradiction of the other.

> > I assume you're not interested at first in the broader purpose of
> > Votorola (collective freedom and autonomy).  Instead you're
> > looking for a clear connection to the concepts of AG MFT.
> 
> No, I would like to understand the big picture of Votorola also.

The parts that have no clear connection with AG MFT (as I understand
it) are the broader means of formal autonomy in mythopoeic
overguidance (technical stuff) and its material end in the content of
the myth (aesthetic stuff) and its realization as actual autonomy
(physical and moral stuff).

> Please note that the AG MFT model does *not* expect any particular
> decision system to be in place! From our point of view LQFB is
> *just* one out of many.

Yes, I understand (sorry for my confusion in our off-list thread).
This is true for Votorola, too.  It will work with any decision system
that is based on human volition; i.e. where the decision is made by a
person, or persons.

Votorola itself is not a decision system, nor a part of one.

Both Votorola and AG MFT share this idea of factoring out a separate
decision system.  Both also share the goal of personal freedom in the
choice of all other (i.e. non-decision) tools.  Almost nobody else
shares these ideas/goals.

Mike