[MG] The problem with "The name of the beast" question.

KrisDev krisdev at gmail.com
Sat Jan 8 04:37:23 EST 2011


Most best is a wrong use. Best alone is good enough. Kris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pietro Speroni di Fenizio
Sent:  08/01/2011 2.41.17 pm
Subject:  [MG] The problem with "The name of the beast" question.

I think I found out what was wrong with Jackie's question: is there a
better phrase than 'open source democracy'?

And I came to the conclusion that part of the reason why we have such
a difficulty in reaching a synthesis is for the way the question is
posed. Maybe in future we should have some guidelines on how to pose
questions that can be solved. What happens if not, and maybe even how
to flag a question that does not follow this standards. For example
closed questions usually end with the proposal: "this is a closed
question, please rewrite and repost in a different format".

Now Jackies question is actually two questions; read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many phrases have been thrown around -- direct democracy, open source
democracy, online democracy, eGov, etc. Perhaps some of these are too
specific, others seem to refer to other goals.

THIS IS A TWO-PART QUESTION:

1) What is the most best (most descriptive, most comprehensive, etc)
phrase to describe the goals of online community governance in a
democratic framework?

2) And what are the criteria for the ideal phrase?

Note: please propose answers to *both* questions, as separate
proposals. These are asked together so that the generations are
coupled, and so that the currently agreed-upon criteria are visible as
people propose new answers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIrst she says that it is a two part questions. And then she specifies
the two questions, and asks to answer them as separate proposals. Now
this is EXACTLY what people have been doing. After about 10
generations we ended up with two winning proposals. One that was an
answer to the first question:

Question 1) What is the most best (most descriptive, most
comprehensive, etc) phrase to describe the goals of online community
governance in a democratic framework?

Answer 1) Open Democracy Here I copied a list of forms of government
(Source: Wikipedia). A properly defined name for "open source
governance" shall fit ...

Question 2) And what are the criteria for the ideal phrase?

Answer 2) Criteria For The Ideal Phrase The ideal phrase would find a
good balance between the following attributes: - accuracy - clarity -
brevity - descriptiveness - uniqueness of meaning...


Now, the only problem is that not every body voted for both proposals,
which meant that the system never claimed that we have reached a
consensus.

In a normal vilfredo question, someone that does not vote, has no
weight. You either suggest something (in which case you can at least
vote your suggestion), or you vote what other suggested. And the
consensus is among people who voted. But being this two questions
connected together the system assumed you have voted for each, when
you just gave your preferences for one. To have a Vilfredo System
handle multiple connected question it would require that:
-to move from the proposal to the voting stage there are at least 2
proposal for each question (and at least 1 new)
-People vote on wach question separately. So you cannot avoid to vote
on something and stop the process for everybody.

But this is really very complicated. And quite unnecessary.
So I think in future we should just not permit those questions.
Vilfredo handles open question, and 1 question at a time. If you want
to have multiple questions posed. You need to run them in parallel,
but in separate instances.

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org




More information about the Start mailing list