[pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?
dario at pirata.cat
Sun Apr 27 12:55:08 CEST 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This discussion is pure gold even for pirates still willing to use
delegation as a tool.
As you all pointed, delegation is not the main problem. Information
exchange is the main one. This also happens in non-delegation systems.
I identified this issue in my "liquid organizations"  proposal
as the usual mismatch between mailing lists and forums. It is only one
facet of the problem.
Obviously, your mileage may vary but in PP-CAT it is the main reason
for lower than expected internal participation.
Information exchange must take place in one tool which allows
different ways of interaction. Something like "google groups" would
fit better the bill (but we need one free as in freedom).
Also you need a way to summarize the text feeds and attach the summary
to the voting. Of course, it must happen after an only deliberation
time. The tool must enforce different "policymaking" phases
(proposing, proposal approval, deliberation, voting, implementation,
Finally, purpoted experts must close the gap between them and
non-experts. They should offer themselves per question, explaining why
they are worthy to delegate.
If you get rid of delegation, well, you can use abstention as an
implicit delegation but you need to make it active. There is no way to
know who abstained because they don't have idea about the topic or
just people who didn't read the notifications.
Trust me, the second type of abstention is the most common one in big
groups (>500 members).
Let's keep up this constructive debate :) BTW, in the PP-EU foundation
was founded a workgroup around this topic too. If you are not there,
ask Anders Kleppe.
El 27/04/14 11:52, aloa5 escribió:
> 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 ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the pp.international.general