[pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?
piratenpartei at t-online.de
Sun Apr 27 11:52:28 CEST 2014
Eduardo Robles Elvira schrieb:
> 2. vote delegation should allow to delegate by category.
That was integrated in LQFB (general delegation, for category and for
each voting seperately).
> 3. delegation needs to expire after N days/months
After years(!) of discussion implementet in LQFB.
> What we don't do in AgoraVoting is discussion: we think that discussion
> can happen elsewhere,
From my pint of view: You make the same mistakes as they did (do) in
There will be a timeline, let´s say 100 days before. At this timeline
let´s say 400 text feeds will enter a discussion [... hm... better say
will enter the tool]. And let´s say 20.000 members af a party should
decide about them.
They have not enough time to read (properly). They have (really) not
enough time to discuss "elswhere". They will not have enough time to
search where "elswhere" is. And if they would find this "elswhere" they
would have not enough time to discuss 400 topics. They will not find
experts (or expert opinions) and they will not find suitable persons for
A tool wich is not a WOTT will make sure that anyone searching for
informations will get them within the tool. If not the tool will lead to
20.000 party members reading 400 topics and deciding about the topics or
the deleagtions without neccessary informations.
"Swarm intelligence" (if existing) can not work without an proper
exchange of informations. A simple fact the developer of LQFB never
More information about the pp.international.general