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

[aloa5]

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 
Germany.

Discussions do_not_happen_elswhere.

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 
delegation.

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 
accepted.


Regards
Otmar