[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ampu-dev] IRC logs

From: alfred . differ
Subject: Re: [Ampu-dev] IRC logs
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:50:16 -0500

Here is a part prior to what you have on the site.
I've deleted certain ChanServ responses involving op attempts, but otherwise it 
is intact.

<jel> Well, since groups are in a hierarchy, I thought that the highest-level 
"leader-group" would define the preference, so that subgroups would be
initially lead by the person forming the group, or similar.
<Democritus2> shit
<jel> Hi Al =)
<Democritus2> i shold turn off chanserv
<adiffer> hello!
<Democritus2> Hi al- nice to meet you in person (sort of)
<jel> Nice to talk to you directly =)
<adiffer> As close as it gets without a plane ticket.  8)
<jel> We're discussing the addition of leaders to the system, as a stop-gap 
between current governments and something better.  That is, a way for
local representatives to use it to conduct polls, be (re-)elected, etc...
<adiffer> whats up today?
<Democritus2> damn it
<Democritus2> it seems i am fighting with chanserv at the moment
<jel> Democritus2: leave Chanserv alone, he's only little =)
<Democritus2> we were discussing how the system is adminstered- governed if you 
<adiffer> I don't need op.  I am coming in through a limited IRC client anyway. 
 I don't think I can do most op things.
<adiffer> ah.  Today is a primary election day here in California.  I feel so 
<jel> Yea, Democritus2: I think the docs say something about leaving ops off, 
until you need it.  Don't know why, though.
<Democritus2> ok
<Democritus2> back to topic then
<jel> adiffer: architecture docs too?  Great =)
*** speek joined the channel
<jel> Hi Speek =)
<jel> We're discussing the addition of leaders to the system, as a stop-gap 
between current governments and something better.  That is, a way for
local representatives to use it to conduct polls, be (re-)elected, etc...
<speek> Hi, this is new for me
<jel> IRC?
<speek> ya
<Democritus2> howdy speek
<speek> hello
<speek> wasn't sure i could get here from work
<jel> IRC is real handy, and easy.  You'll get the hang of it real quick.  
Toughest part is reading a screenful of messages at once =)
<speek> don't let me slow you down, i'lll lurk till i feel more up-to-speed
<Democritus2> however by adding leaders to the system are we creating a very 
large danger of making our system like the existing one?
<speek> From what I've read of the jury idea, don't we already have "leaders', 
and danger of being too much like the existing system?
<adiffer> Could a leader be someone who proposes that a decision be made or a 
poll be offered or something like that?
<Democritus2> this is a little different than juries- basically this concept 
comes from trying to practically apply the concept of direct democracy in
 our current system(s)
<jel> So, we're currently thinking of a system wereby certain Forums can be 
designated as governed by a leader - such as a local area's government
representative.  This control would be very obviously present in any group, so 
that such groups could co-exist with normal groups, where no particular
 leader exists.
<Democritus2> basically the idea stems from trying to sneak direct democracy in 
through the back door- by converting representatives to a direct
democracy- while keeping the current system in tact
<Democritus2> subversion is always a good thing :)
<jel> Well, I'd planned a sort of "person responsible" (as opposed to leader, 
per se) for the Taskforces - someone to finally say "yep, this task is
done." or "Nope, it's screwed.  Anyone got a better idea?"
<speek> is this inspired by steve's idea about electing a "direct democracy" 
candidate, who makes decisions via ampu?
<Democritus2> yes
<jel> Democritus2 == speek =)
<jel> OOPs, == Steve, even =)
<Democritus2> hehe
<Democritus2> brb
<speek> oh, ok tx
<speek> jel - that sounds like what the juries do
<jel> Sorry, Demo - did I blow your cover? ;)
<adiffer> One way to sneak it in is to permit small installations 'owned' by a 
representative.  That rep would use the input for decision making.
<jel> OK.. well, the way I'd saw it, we need some level of separation between 
those who decide that something should be done, and those who actually
do it.
<speek> right juries and taskforces, where does a "leader" fit in? what are the 
roles of this position?
<jel> adiffer: yes, that was my initial idea.  Thinking it through, though.. it 
would still require someone with the same powers as these leaders to
actually make use of it, despite them hosting the server, right?
<jel> speek: that's the issue I'm having with it right now.  Which powers a 
leader would need, which would be too much, and how to police them?
<adiffer> jel:  yup.  Scaling efficiencies will eventually encourage users to 
band together and the 'leaders' power becomes more diffuse.
<Democritus2> adiffer yes
<jel> Democritus2: IRC logging engaged? ;)
<Democritus2> yes
<adiffer> I see a leader as an administrator.  Technical details get delegated 
to a rep's staffer.
<adiffer> 8)  If this keeps up, we will have our Actors list pronto.
<jel> Democritus2: can you explain why citizens should not propose initiatives 
in such a lead-group?  Or is that not what you're saying?
<jel> adiffer: =)
<Democritus2> yeah thats what started it
<Democritus2> NO- citizens should def propose initiatives
<jel> adiffer: I still have a few more to add too, I think =)
<Democritus2> however in some instances of ampu- a leader will ultimately bring 
those proposals to fruition
<adiffer> So a leader could initiate decision making and be a task manager.
<jel> Great.  But then, why can't a leader simply propose an initiative, watch 
the outcome of a vote, and assume responsibility for the Taskforce
resulting from it?
<speek> might be conflict of interest to be proposer and leader of taskforce
<adiffer> COI's can appear all over the place.  We beat them through 
disclosure.  Policies can cover that.
<jel> That would cover the actual management of decisions to my mind.  Would a 
leader need more abilities?
<Democritus2> because some decisions would be brought from other sources
<Democritus2> if you have a dd party rep on a county council with 5 people- 
those other four people may bring topics to vote on
<Democritus2> that would be outside of the system- someone would have to add 
those topics so the citizens could vote on those as well
<Democritus2> keep in mind this is but one very specific application to ampu- 
this would not always be needed
<jel> adiffer: got you message on docs in CVS.  Sorry, there just isn't that 
much right now, except for what's been going around my head a while.  I'm
 in the middle of starting a business, too, so I've just been a little too busy 
recently =(
<Democritus2> jel me too
<jel> I'll make a concerted effort to get everything in type, though.
<jel> Democritus2: busy?  or starting a business?
<Democritus2> getting a business off the ground
<jel> =)
<Democritus2> started it about 4 months ago
<adiffer> I hear you.  I'm just making my usual comment that CVS doesn't mind 
starting documents at the very beginning.
<Democritus2> and working a day job
<Democritus2> subversion is a bit better
<jel> adiffer: good point =)
<adiffer> I'm starting a business too.  Nice cooincidence here.
<jel> adiffer: what business is it?  I already know a little of Demo's.
<jel> That is a good point, speek, about the conflict of interest.  But, unless 
you imagine it becoming especially bad, I think adiffer's idea of
transparency would cover it.  I can't think of other solutions at the moment, 
at least.  Are you still worried about that?
<speek> mostly i'm unclear how juries get selected, how taskforces get 
selected, etc.
<adiffer> It's a toy business at the moment.  I make and sell a model of a 
vehicle used by JP Aerospace for taking their rocket to the stratosphere
for a launch.
<jel> I wonder why a crowd of people who aren't happy with the form of 
government chosen by most of the civilised world would choose to start their
own businesses, rather than work for someone else?  Coincidence? ;)
<adiffer> speek:  I'm unclear on that too.
<speek> if i propose something, i probably have something in mind concerning 
the decision
<Democritus2> jel most large corps are worse than most governments
<speek> if i'm put in charge of the taskforce, i might be tempted to do what i 
originally wanted to do, regardless of what decision the jury made
<jel> speek:  yes, sorry, that's not been well explained so far.  Sequence 
diagrams (is that the correct term?) would explain such things much better,
 but here goes..
<adiffer> I don't feel all that bad about big corps.  I can own a piece of most 
of them and be a voting shareholder as a result.  I own part of my own
<speek> i don't own a business, i'm on corporate welfare myself
<jel> OK.. initially, someone proposes an Initiative (a problem, which requires 
a solution)
<jel> Solutions can then be suggested and discussed
<speek> by everyone?
<jel> Some method of filtering out bad Initiatives would be needed, much like 
K5's submission queue.
<Democritus2> moderator?
<adiffer> ugh.  Think petition to get an initiative on the ballot.
<jel> speek: unsure.. don't see a reason to limit ideas to just the Jury.  But 
the Jury would probably have BETTER ideas, so I don't know about that
yet.  Flexible, here?
<jel> adiffer: really?  Why?
<speek> i'm thinking it'd be better if everyone could discuss
<adiffer> That is effectively what K5 does.  It is better than a moderator.
<jel> adiffer: oh, you were responding to the moderator question.  I thought 
you were referring to the submission queue idea.
<jel> Anyway, to get the whole idea out there...
<jel> Somehow, the Initiative would proceed to become a Jury.  Then, depending 
on preferences set throughout the system, or locally, in the Forum (or
some parent Forum), the required Jury size would be known, as would the method 
of vote counting.
<jel> The jury would be selected randomly from the Forum in which the Jury was 
created, since they are the people who care about the topic.
<speek> oh excellent, i was worried that jury selection would be matter of 
<jel> Potential jurors would have a chance to reject Jury service, if, for 
example, they were too busy.
<Democritus2> is it the jury that does the voting or the citizens? i am confused
<speek> random is good, but you'll have a real tough time selling the idea
<speek> what about just having the jury research the issue and bring 
information back to the forum?
<jel> Democritus2: Jury is a randomly selected group of Citizens.  There is 
flexbility here to be representative or "directly democrative (?)"..
<jel> By saying that a Jury should be 100% of citizens in the group creating 
it, you get pure direct democracy.
<speek> oh, that makes sense jel
<adiffer> jel:  You've just written a facade level 'Basic Course of Events' for 
a use case.  8)
<jel> adiffer: heh.. I'll get this UML thing yet =)
<Democritus2> ack
<adiffer> ...and described a couple extension points.
<jel> OK, so Juries debate the issues, request more information, field studies, 
whatever they think they need to make a good decision.
<Democritus2> but the citizens on a whole make the actual decision correct?
<jel> After a set period of time, fixed date, or everyone saying "I'm ready" 
(again, flexibility here), we begin taking votes.
<Democritus2> i see the juries as being fact finders- and reporting those facts 
not being a voting power
<Democritus2> if they become a voting power you have representative democracy
<Democritus2> ok
<Democritus2> sorry- i think i have it now
<jel> Democritus2: OK, I'll explain more in a sec if needed.
<adiffer> I don't need to vote when I trust someone knows the subject better 
and will do a good job for me.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]