<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> Kevin told me, he is going to officially register the party now. Now I think, it would be good, to immidiatly start using our tools. So the first members of the party get already a feeling, what it is all about, even if the tools in general are still in prototyp-phase. So even the party principles itself could be subject to collaborative improvement right from the beginning and open to every new member. Next steps from my point of view would now be: - Discussion-Medium: setup a discussion forum at the partys homepage. This could be used for new members to exchange ideas etc. But more importantly it could be used to discuss specific differences in positions regarding party principles or party policies. This type of forum would ideally allow to structure tons of threads in a tree-structure (maybe every forum allows this, I dont know). So every policy-issue could have its own thread and every voter in this issue can have his own sub-thread and maybe even sub-sub-threads for certain parts of his position. There can be thousands of threads in the future. - Drafting-Medium: I guess for the beginning we can use the zelea-wiki for drafting. Should I setup a seperate area for the party? Which then would have seperate sub-areas, like Canada, Toronto, ...? Doesnt make so much sense, does it? Better to use the whole wiki for the party and later filter out non-members, imo. - Voting-Medium: use the zelea-vote-sever. What are your thoughts? Thomas On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 2:53, Michael Allan wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:20110301015336.GA4658@havoc.zelea.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Rohan Jayasekera wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Michael, if I understand correctly, you're saying that there is no need to choose right now between "party" and "no party" approaches, and that Votorola and Transparency Party people should just work together on getting a vote going in some riding on one or more issues. Is that correct? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Thomas von der Elbe wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Yes, I am more and more beginning to see it like this too. Party or no party doesn't actually matter right now. What matters most is that we together actually start to vote on a particular and well chosen issue. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Yes, since Thomas wants to. But I can only speak for myself, not Votorola. The #1 priority is that we continue working together (our small crew). #2 is to give the tools a good workout, without which development stalls (see below). So I think anyone who can move on 2 without sacrificing 1 is going to lead the development forward. Rohan Jayasekera wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Simplicity is key when introducing new things to people, so I suggest that the initial issue(s) be ones that are already well understood. Also, since only a small percentage of people will be (a) contactable by us and (b) willing to be "early adopters", we will need a fairly large population to draw from in order to get enough initial participants to bootstrap from. I suspect that a single riding will be too small. Perhaps all ridings in one city could be covered (Toronto seems to me the obvious choice), so that in the early days when we don't have meaningful numbers in any one riding we can still have meaningful totals for the city, and publicizing those via city- level media will attract additional participation in each riding. (City-level media can include social media: tweeters often assume that the reader is in the same city and when that's untrue it's accepted and forgiven.) ... </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Technically we can handle any size/shape of jurisdiction, and just about any issue. So that's all open. Just to be sure: the early adopters (b) won't have beta-quality tools to work with. The tools are functional, but not always easy to use, full of features, beautiful to look at, etc. We won't be able to fix that till the users confirm that all the essential pieces are in place. (We need the walls, wiring and plumbing installed before we can hang the wallpaper, decorations, and so forth.) Thomas von der Elbe wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">One question remains open for me though: is it good enough, if the vote-server runs under Mikes domain? People will want to have some security that their votes and work will not be lost. I always pictured some organizational structure which would garantee this. Is there another way? If no, what priority does it have? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> If the only concern is data loss, then I think we have a solution already. The backup is stored here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://zelea.com/system/host/havoc/var/cache/votorola/v/">http://zelea.com/system/host/havoc/var/cache/votorola/v/</a> Someone just has to copy it to an independent site every so often, and we'll be fairly safe. Later, when we implement results verification, every verifier will have the ability to recreate a vote-server from scratch. Meantime, the source code is here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/votorola/">http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/votorola/</a> Copy that too, and we're pretty well covered. </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Votorola" group. To post to this group, send an email to votorola@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to votorola+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/votorola?hl=en-GB.