<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Michael Allan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@zelea.com" target="_blank">mike@zelea.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(cc AG Politik, Election Methods, apologies for cross-posting)<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Marc said:<br>
> Sorry that I have put it this way. Unfortunately it is realy hard<br>
> for me to express my thoughts in english language, because it's not<br>
> my mother language and sometimes I feel like lost in translation...<br>
<br>
</div>I appreciate the effort you're putting into this lengthy thread. You<br>
must have other important things to work on, too. But I assure you,<br>
your English is excellent. I understand your words. I don't think<br>
our misunderstanding is about words, but rather about larger concepts.<br>
I hope we can clear it up shortly. Please refer once more to the two<br>
choices we, as technicians, have for obtaining users: * **<br>
<div class="im"><br>
(1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus leveling<br>
the playing field and enabling the users to range freely from<br>
platform to platform.<br>
<br>
</div> Beseitigen Sie die Netzwerk-Effekte zwischen den Plattformen,<br>
so Einebnung des Spielfeldes und ermöglicht den Benutzern,<br>
reichen frei von Plattform zu Plattform.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
(2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own<br>
platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.<br>
<br>
</div> auf Netzwerk-Effekte Vertrauen, um alle Benutzer auf die<br>
eigene Kraft Plattform und schafft so als einer<br>
de-facto-Monopol.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> I am fine with (1) and therefore (a).<br>
<br>
</div>We are close to an understanding, then. We both want (1) and (a).<br>
Let's move on to discussing the solution. This is where it gets<br>
interesting for the Pirate Party.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> But thinking one step beyond, (b) and (c) are NOT conflicting with<br>
> (a) from my point of view.<br>
</div> . . .<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> The SOLUTION should...<br>
> a) ... enable free choice of the tooling for every users.<br>
> b) ... cover all parts of the decision making process.<br>
> c) ... make all discourse related data entered by any user available<br>
> to others.<br>
<br>
</div>You understand that user freedom (a) cannot be realized except by<br>
eliminating (1) the network effects that underpin toolset lock-in.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect</a><br>
<a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkeffekt" target="_blank">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzwerkeffekt</a><br>
<br>
In obtaining users for our tools, therefore, how do you propose to<br>
eliminate those network effects? What is your solution for that?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> > (And again the future of the Pirate Party is bound up in this,<br>
> > even if they don't see it yet. So altogether it's a very<br>
> > interesting topic.)<br>
><br>
> Unfortunately from time to time it seems to me you are baked into<br>
> old belief systems. The Pirate Party is just a vehicle to ride with<br>
> for a while. It's necessary to speed up things. Not more. Not less.<br>
<br>
</div>Things will go very fast indeed if we keep on talking, so much so that<br>
the party (as such) won't be able to handle the speed. But nor will<br>
the other parties, particularly the mainstream ones with members in<br>
the Bundestag and state assemblies. All will be shaken to pieces.<br>
<br>
Do you know why? My own thinking on this has improved in the last<br>
month, thanks to discussions in the Election Methods list.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Which is the "election methods list"?<br>I'd like to join that list :-)<br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Last month, you said:<br>
> What should I say? I have currently no crystal ball around to<br>
> predict the future. The only thing I know about the future is that<br>
> it never comes like I thought.<br>
<br>
Just look at the present for what it is *technically* and you will see<br>
the future. The future hinges on something you already understand in<br>
the present: position forming (Standpunktbildung), or primary voting<br>
as I call it. A political party is just a vehicle for position<br>
forming. Technically speaking, it is nothing but a "toolset platform"<br>
for that purpose. Here I don't mean just the Pirate Party and other<br>
online parties, but *all* parties. Look at them through a technicians<br>
eyes. All are toolset platforms.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Technically you are correct, but parties have a special standing within the current system.<br>Elected representatives are the only people who can pass bills, so what the pirate party is,<br>
is a hack in order to inject that, wich will be discussed and voted for on plattforms, into the process,</div><div style>which converts it into real laws.<br><br>At least in germany, the pirate party will probably be the only party, which can make those kind of plattforms popular.<br>
So in the beginning, i imagine, that such plattforms will be use more or less exclusively by pirates.<br>Once the media recognizes this, it might spread beyond the pirates and other parties will perhaps observe the pirate party</div>
<div style>and other plattforms and consider the results when they vote for laws.<br><br></div><div style>So, once all the parties take the results of those exchanging plattforms into account, parties might become irrelevant,</div>
<div style>but still, only representatives can make that, which is voted for on plattforms, legally binding.<br><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> But mainly the process of changing democracy will take up to three<br>
> generations of man. Today our society is not prepared to take over<br>
> the power. So that's nothing I want to take care about right now...<br>
<br>
It will happen fast. Enabling people to move freely among toolset<br>
platforms (by a solution we haven't yet discussed), will necessarily<br>
enable them to move among political parties *without political<br>
consequences*. This will destroy the party system.</blockquote><div style><br>+1 :-)<br>I feel the same.<br>Once, people can move freely among toolset plattforms, this will be the case,</div><div style>but at least in germany, the pirate party, as a toolset plattform in itself, will probably be the only</div>
<div style>political party, which is open to such a solution.<br>Other parties will remain closed toolset plattforms and because they have direct access to the law making process,</div><div style>they can afford it.<br>So in order to make open toolset plattforms interesting, there has to be at least ONE party, which supports them,</div>
<div style>so people eventually vote for the pirates in order to get the results of the open toolset plattforms into laws,</div><div style>which might force the other parties to open up too, and as soon as they do, the party system will be destroyed.<br>
If they dont open up, the pirate party will take over and people will take care of the pirate party not beeing corrupted.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Immediately it<br>
will begin to fall apart at the seams. In technical terms, it will<br>
become rationalized into purely technical functions on the one hand,<br>
and purely political on the other. The political parties as we know<br>
them will have vanished.<br>
<br>
Are you comfortable with this? Should we make it happen?<br></blockquote><div style><br>Hope so :-) ...and i guess Marc thinks so too.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
* We must be clear on this issue. A platform cannot succeed<br>
without users. There are two ways to obtain those users:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
(1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus<br>
leveling the playing field and enabling the users to range<br>
freely from platform to platform.<br>
<br>
</div> This is the right way.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
(2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own<br>
platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.<br>
<br>
</div> This is harmful and unnecessary, and therefore wrong.<br>
<br>
These are the only ways. There are no grey areas in between.<br>
If our choice is not (1), then it is (2), and no responsible<br>
engineer will cooperate with us. Instead he'll point to the<br>
danger and warn us not to proceed.<br>
<br>
(1) or (2)? What should we do?<br>
<br>
** Or in Alexander Praetorius's translation:<br>
<br>
Wir müssen in dieser Frage klar. Eine Plattform kann nicht ohne<br>
Erfolg Benutzer. Es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten, um die Benutzer zu<br>
erhalten:<br>
<br>
(1) Beseitigen Sie die Netzwerk-Effekte zwischen den<br>
Plattformen, so Einebnung des Spielfeldes und ermöglicht<br>
den Benutzern, reichen frei von Plattform zu Plattform.<br>
<br>
Dies ist der richtige Weg.<br>
<br>
(2) auf Netzwerk-Effekte Vertrauen, um alle Benutzer auf die<br>
eigene Kraft Plattform und schafft so als einer<br>
de-facto-Monopol.<br>
<br>
Dies ist schädlich und unnötig und daher fehlerhaft.<br>
<br>
Dies sind die einzigen Möglichkeiten. Es gibt keine Grauzonen<br>
dazwischen. wenn Unsere Wahl ist nicht (1), dann ist es (2),<br>
und kein verantwortlicher Ingenieur wird mit uns<br>
zusammenzuarbeiten. Stattdessen wird er auf die Gefahr<br>
hinweisen und warnen uns nicht weiter zu verfolgen.<br>
<br>
(1) oder (2)? Was sollen wir tun?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
marc said:<br>
> Hi Mike,<br>
><br>
> Not sure how to put it ;o)<br>
><br>
> You wrote:<br>
> > I return to answer your questions from last month. Please be patient<br>
> > with me, because there's a misunderstanding to clear up.<br>
> ><br>
> >> a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling,<br>
> >> b) within the context of a discourse<br>
> >> c) and without any loss of data.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Does this make sense to you?<br>
> ><br>
> > No, not yet. I understand (a), because I introduced it myself. It's<br>
> > the basic human right of free association. What I don't understand is<br>
> > how it's qualified by location (b) or technical considerations (c).<br>
> > Human rights are universal, of course. They apply everywhere. So (a)<br>
> > cannot possibly be qualified by (b), as implied here.<br>
> ><br>
> > Certain qualifications *are* possible in individual cases. Dangerous<br>
> > criminals are denied freedom, for example. But no human right can be<br>
> > qualified for the sake of a mere technical consideration. So (a)<br>
> > cannot possibly be qualified by (c), either.<br>
> ><br>
> > I'm sure you know all this. You say so below. But nevertheless you<br>
> > imply the opposite with this union of (a, b, c). This confuses me.<br>
><br>
> Sorry that I have put it this way. Unfortunately it is realy hard for me to<br>
> express my thoughts in english language, because it's not my mother language<br>
> and sometimes I feel like lost in translation...<br>
><br>
> Anyway, I didn't want to express that (a) is qualified or restricted by (b)<br>
> and/or (c).<br>
><br>
> Far from it! Instead (b) and (c) are enhancing (a). Therefore (a), (b) and<br>
> (c) should be seen more as constraints to the SOLUTION but not to the users<br>
> and their freedom of choice!<br>
><br>
> This might reduces the event horizon of possible solutions at first. But<br>
> later on - that's the hope - it increases the benefit for the user.<br>
><br>
> We definitely should work towards a solution that respects ALL THREE (a - c)<br>
> constraints, but we can do this iteratively. First of all let's ensure that<br>
> THE SOLUTION fulfills (a). We could name this first iteration "Alpha" and<br>
> it's outcome is neither a specific plattform nor implementation. It's more<br>
> like a conceptual draft or specification to which (b) and (c) are applied in<br>
> the next iterations called "Beta" and "Gamma".<br>
><br>
> So what's the SOLUTION about?<br>
><br>
> 1) We are in the quest for a better (whatever "better" means) democracy,<br>
> aren't we?<br>
> 2) We see e-democracy (whatever "e-democracy" means) as a promising answer<br>
> to improve democracy, right?<br>
><br>
> I would like to see the following as a specification for the SOLUTION:<br>
><br>
> The SOLUTION should...<br>
> a) ... enable free choice of the tooling for every users.<br>
> b) ... cover all parts of the decision making process.<br>
> c) ... make all discourse related data entered by any user available to<br>
> others.<br>
><br>
> That's what AG Meinungsfindungstool is working on and we call it "d!sco"<br>
> (Discussion Ontology). Of course there is a lot discussion necessary to<br>
> clarify the details...<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> >>> I agree with (a), but why restrict the user's choice to (b) and<br>
> >>> (c)? Suppose user U needs a toolset that covers only part of the<br>
> >>> discourse, or part of the data. Why not give U the same freedom<br>
> >>> as others to choose according to personal need, or preference?<br>
> >>> Who would have the authority to say, "No, that choice is not<br>
> >>> permitted".<br>
> >><br>
> >> That's not what I wanted to express. The user should not be<br>
> >> restricted in any way, but can choose whatever toolset he wants,<br>
> >> using whatever data he wants. Even if not any transition between<br>
> >> tools might be reasonable in the context of the discourse.<br>
> ><br>
> > Then isn't the following what you mean to say?<br>
> ><br>
> > (a) Let the users freely choose their favorite tooling.<br>
> ><br>
> > Period. Or more precisely:<br>
> ><br>
> > (a) Let each user freely choose his/her favorite tooling.<br>
> ><br>
> > If you agree to this, then please don't speak of other things in the<br>
> > same connection. Until we agree on (a), introducing (b) and (c) as<br>
> > part of that agreement implies that you don't agree to (a) alone.<br>
><br>
> I - and AG MFT - fully agree on (a) as a constraint to the SOLUTION.<br>
><br>
> And (b) and (c) are further constraints to the SOLUTION.<br>
><br>
> >> In my honest opinion (a) is already in place today. Everyone is free<br>
> >> to use the toolset of his free choice. But one big thing missing now<br>
> >> is the availability of the data. When it comes to changing the<br>
> >> tools, the move of already entered data is mainly the problem. And<br>
> >> to be honest, I don't want to enter the data again, just because I<br>
> >> switched the tool, do you?<br>
> ><br>
> > No, not if it's unecessary and harmful. But more important, I would<br>
> > like to have other tools to switch to *in the first place*. I would<br>
> > not like the other tools to be forbidden, or to have their development<br>
> > impeded or limited in any way.<br>
><br>
> So neither I will.<br>
><br>
> > So here I return to (a) all alone,<br>
> > when you wish in the same breath to speak of (b) and (c). You said:<br>
> ><br>
> >> In my honest opinion (a) is already in place today. Everyone is free<br>
> >> to use the toolset of his free choice. ...<br>
> ><br>
> > Today you are right. But tomorrow? I'm sorry to repeat, but we must<br>
> > be especially clear on this issue. A platform cannot succeed without<br>
> > users. There are exactly two ways to obtain those users:<br>
> ><br>
> > (1) Eliminate the network effects between platforms, thus<br>
> > leveling the playing field and enabling the users to range<br>
> > freely from platform to platform.<br>
> ><br>
> > (2) Rely on network effects to force all users onto our own<br>
> > platform, thus establishing it as a de-facto monopoly.<br>
> ><br>
> > The fact that we have freedom of choice in 2013 does not give us<br>
> > licence to take away that freedom in 2014 and to put a monopoly in its<br>
> > place. Of course not. Yet that is exactly our intention if we aren't<br>
> > working to obtain our users by method (1). There are no grey areas in<br>
> > between, so the only possible alternative is to obtain those users by<br>
> > method (2), which is the opposite of free choice.<br>
> ><br>
> > In other words, if we really agree to (a), then we must work on (1).<br>
> > And if we don't work on (1), then we don't really agree to (a).<br>
> > Logically this is inescapable.<br>
><br>
> I am fine with (1) and therefore (a).<br>
><br>
> But thinking one step beyond, (b) and (c) are NOT conflicting with (a) from<br>
> my point of view.<br>
><br>
> >> I am not talking about merging plattforms - there should plenty of<br>
> >> them exist. The trick is to make them cooperate by sharing data and<br>
> >> enhancing the processes one another.<br>
> ><br>
> > There won't be plenty of platforms by default. There will be exactly<br>
> > one platform unless we cooperate to enable free choice. We might have<br>
> > state-of-the-art data transfers, but no platforms to transfer to.<br>
> > We're living in a period that's like the laissez-faire of the 1800s.<br>
> > Society has yet to learn the necessity of a safe environment for<br>
> > competition. Therefore we must cooperate to create our own safe<br>
> > environment, or it'll be dog-eat-dog. Only the biggest will survive.<br>
><br>
> That's why we are here, isn't it? To enable cooperation for a better<br>
> tomorrow.<br>
><br>
> > Of all the projects, AG Meinungsfindungstool is the most forward<br>
> > thinking. That's what attracted us (Thomas and me) to your earlier<br>
> > powwows. You understood the distinction between primary and decision<br>
> > systems and the need to keep the two separate. You understood the<br>
> > need for discussion as opposed to the mindless pressing of vote<br>
> > buttons. And you were working to enable a free choice of tools, at<br>
> > least within your own platform, which is (at least) a step in the<br>
> > right direction.<br>
><br>
> What do you mean by "your own platform"? There is no such thing like A<br>
> PLATFORM in terms of AG MFT! Of course we have just started to work on some<br>
> reference implementations, but that's mainly a proof of concept. The<br>
> expected outcome is more like a cookbook: The Common Discussion Standard<br>
> (CDS). This is one possible SOLUTION that would respect (a), (b) and (c) all<br>
> together.<br>
><br>
> Everyone is welcome to contribute to acquire this vision.<br>
><br>
> > These three things put you out in front of the field<br>
> > and made it worthwhile talking to you.<br>
> ><br>
> > (And again the future of the Pirate Party is bound up in this, even if<br>
> > they don't see it yet. So altogether it's a very interesting topic.)<br>
><br>
> Unfortunately from time to time it seems to me you are baked into old belief<br>
> systems. The Pirate Party is just a vehicle to ride with for a while. It's<br>
> necessary to speed up things. Not more. Not less.<br>
><br>
> What else could I say? I'll try to focus it in german. Maybe someone is able<br>
> to translate this into english better than I can:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Der Punkt ist glaube ich, dass wir scheinbar genau dasselbe wollen, aber auf<br>
> unterschiedlichen Detailebenen denken und argumentieren.<br>
><br>
> Es ist unstrittig, das die Benutzer die freie Wahl zwischen den Tools haben<br>
> müssen. Dies ist für mich die Grundbedingung (a), welche von einer LÖSUNG<br>
> erfüllt werden muss.<br>
><br>
> Allerdings gibt es noch zwei weitere Bedingungen, welche von der LÖSUNG<br>
> ebenfalls erfüllt sein sollten:<br>
><br>
> Die LÖSUNG sollte auch...<br>
> b) ... den gesamten Prozess der Willensbildung abdecken.<br>
> c) ... die von den Nutzern in den Diskursen erfassten Daten für alle<br>
> verfügbar machen können.<br>
><br>
> Diese Bedingungen schränken aber nicht den Benutzer, sondern die mögliche<br>
> LÖSUNG ein. Aber die LÖSUNG ist keine dedizierte Plattform oder spezielle<br>
> Implementierung. Es ist vielmehr eine Art Konzeption oder Spezifikation,<br>
> welche iterativ erarbeitet werden kann.<br>
><br>
> Die AG MFT arbeitet daran.<br>
><br>
> Wir fangen auch gerade an Referenzimplementierungen zu erstellen, welche<br>
> mehr unsere Theorien überprüfen sollen und als Ergebnis die Verabschiedung<br>
> einer gemeinsamen Standardisierung für Diskussionen haben könnten: The<br>
> Common Discussion Standard.<br>
><br>
> Wir nennen den Prototypen "d!sco" (Discussion Ontology). Hier gibt es<br>
> natürlich noch jede menge offener Detailfragen zu klären.<br>
><br>
> Jeder ist herzlich eingeladen an dieser Vision mitzuarbeiten!<br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers<br>
> marc<br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Votorola mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Votorola@zelea.com">Votorola@zelea.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola" target="_blank">http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">
***********************************************</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Alexander Praetorius</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Rappstraße 13</div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">D - 60318 Frankfurt am Main</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Germany</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">
<b>[skype] </b>alexander.praetorius</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><b>[mail] </b><a href="mailto:alexander.praetorius@serapath.de" target="_blank">citizen@serapath.de</a></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">
<b>[web] </b><a href="http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath" target="_blank">http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath</a> </div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">***********************************************</div>
</div>
</div></div>