[pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?

[aloa5]

hyazinthe at emailn.de schrieb:
..
> 2. Super delegation problem
..


0. Lack of information about everything wich is the main reason of 2. 
[and of course the unwillingness of the developer of LQFB and related 
tools to accept the "0-problem"].


==> If you have to make 100 decisions about things you don´t are a 
specialist (= read and decide) you must have informations [any MEP or 
member of another council will agree].

LQFB delivers (absolute) no informations. And because of this it´s a 
waste of time tool [WOTT].
--> You can waste your time reading texts with you don´t know anything 
about because you are not a specialist.
--> You can waste your time searching anywhere in the party for anyone 
who (perhaps) knows something about this.
--> You can waste your time searching about a politician in the party 
wich (perhaps) know someone who is a specialist.
--> You can waste your time searching for a specialist.

And if you don´t want to use WOTT... you delegate someone you "trust". 
That´s a "decision tool" [THE decision tool].

Aside of other problems with WOTT this is the main problem wich causes a 
low quality outcome. WOTT+low quality= no one use it. One other problem 
is the low quality input. But never mind. Low quality input+low quality 
prooving [because lack of informations]=low quality output.


Some(!) pirates once said that they would prefere more expert knowledge 
for instance when there are discussions [and of course decisions] about 
"internet". The same(?) pirates developed WOTT to make a "binding online 
resolution system" without any workflow for more expert knowledge 
[direct or transported].


And here we are - years after the intro of LQFB. The same problems as in 
year zero. Would be more interesting to search for the reasons why the 
transport of informations is much more difficult (and have absolute no 
priority at all).



Regards
Otmar