<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Your feedback is always welcome, Carlo ;)<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/2/25 carlo von lynX <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lynX@pirate.my.buttharp.org" target="_blank">lynX@pirate.my.buttharp.org</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br></div>
the main problem of all alternatives to liquid feedback is that,<br>
if they implement liquid democracy all, they still do not free the<br>
participant from having to monitor new issues to make sure they<br>
don't miss anything they care about. LF has the area concept<br>
which lets you not care about 95% of party politics and just<br>
focus on your area of competence. that may seem obvious, but it<br>
is IMHO crucial.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I totally agree.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
your approach at least has half a solution by sending people a<br>
"flow creation notice." still i'm afraid if used on a scale of<br>
pirate party lqfb's it would get annoying without the area<br>
splitting.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is the concept of nexus to split the system by "organic/natural" grouping. The idea is to create groups based on user's data like city, province/land/whatever, country, working groups, etc.<br>
<br></div><div>It's like areas in LF but with a cool name (inspired in circles on Google+, I must admit).<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
instead i have been recently scandalously considering the idea<br>
of extending the suggestion mechanism of LQFB into a fully<br>
blown threaded and weighted forum system.. basically a reddit<br>
built into LF - simply by distinguishing a conversational item<br>
from an actual amendment request to the proposal. the way LF<br>
doesn't have a builtin conversation tool fails as people never<br>
know there is a conversation there, so they never click on the<br>
link. so having it integrated and profiting from the like/dislike<br>
valutations already makes it de facto like built-in reddit. all<br>
it needs is a chronological representation and a nice graphical<br>
presentation of important and unimportant contributions.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is pretty close to what I was thinking.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
even the forking and merging of flows can all make sense in<br>
a setting like that, and it would all be integrated in a single<br>
tool. after all i don't see a point in rewriting all the other<br>
parts of the code of LF which are just fine.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>One idea was to use LF API (in node.js if I'm not wrong) as a backend. I particularly like LF core in pure SQL, it is good piece of software.<br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">
> Also, I don't have enough time to lead technically this project but maybe I<br>
> can help to put together a group to create (from the ground or based on<br>
> other) a better software. I think I'm not alone from what I read in other<br>
> threads. Who is up too for this idea?<br>
<br>
</div>just gave you my $0.02 for that :)<br>
<br>
but it's time for me to shut up and be quiet for the next half<br>
year.. too much activity on the same mailing list is never healthy ;)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess we should have a mailing list for these ideas/projects ;)<br><br></div><div>Thanks!<br></div><div><br></div></div>--<br><div>Dario Castañé</div>
<div><a href="http://www.dario.im" target="_blank">http://www.dario.im</a> | <a href="http://twitter.com/im_dario" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/im_dario</a></div>
</div></div>