[MG] Is Main Page unapproachable?
epastore at metagovernment.org
Sat Jun 12 15:37:06 EDT 2010
On Jun 12, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
> (apologies if you couldn't reach the servers, my WAN link was down)
So, to restate, the poll is here:
> Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Dude, I told you about this problem (_and_ gave you a solution)
>> ago. See the discussion tab off the main page in my dialog to
> Here's that discussion between Mark and Targetrace, and the edit they
> were disputing:
> (I think this kind of collision is the fault of the tools, not the
I see the dispute, but I don't see what you're proposing as the
answer, Mark. Is it the addition of that link<http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Why_this_project_is_needed
>? I see your point, but I don't think that link (nor the tone of the
linked page), is the way of achieving it. I also don't necessarily
agree with the value judgement of saying this project is "needed" as
much as it is hoped to be beneficial.
> Ed Pastore wrote:
>>> Often when I refer people to our website, I get feedback that they
>>> "don't get it yet" or "didn't have time to wade through it all."
>>> Or various
>>> things like that.
>>> . . .
>>> So, can anyone come up with ways to make it even more approachable?
> Here's one possible way - tell the reader (very clearly) what the
> project will enable him to do:
> Is that roughly the right approach? Will it work? (And will the
> tools work on a real issue, such as this?)
This is a pretty nice way of approaching it. Are you suggesting this
for the Metagovernment home page? (Or is that a question implied in
the question of what to call the FRVP? I continue to suggest that free-
range voting, while not the entirety of the mission of Metagovernment,
is still quite a large part of it.)
More information about the Start