Mar 26 23:00:47 --> You are now talking on #ampu
Mar 26 23:00:47 --- Topic for #ampu is Coding a better government. Join us...
Mar 26 23:00:47 --- Topic for #ampu set by ChanServ at Fri Mar 8 22:54:13
Mar 26 23:00:48 -ChanServ- [#ampu] Welcome to AMPU. See for details.

Mar 26 23:00:53 <jel> hi guys =)
Mar 26 23:11:56 --> speek ( has joined #ampu
Mar 26 23:12:13 <jel> hi speek. How's it going?
Mar 26 23:12:18 <speek> hi, ok
Mar 26 23:12:20 <speek> sorry i'm late
Mar 26 23:12:36 <jel> no probs. I'm late too.. still putting stuff into cvs now =)
Mar 26 23:13:03 <jel> we now have 31 (iirc) use cases, but no diagrams as yet.
Mar 26 23:13:10 <speek> i steve here?
Mar 26 23:13:14 <speek> is...
Mar 26 23:13:28 <jel> nope, probably working late again.
Mar 26 23:13:30 <speek> that's great!
Mar 26 23:13:41 <speek> oh
Mar 26 23:13:53 <speek> so, what's your current thinking?
Mar 26 23:14:10 <jel> I'd hoped to get the diagrams done today too, set aside lots of time for it, but it took a lot longer than I expected =(
Mar 26 23:14:12 <speek> other than whether vegetarianism is right or wrong ;-)
Mar 26 23:14:17 <jel> =^)
Mar 26 23:14:36 <speek> diagrams are like that
Mar 26 23:15:41 <jel> you'll be able to see in a sec, but basically a what we've been talking about, only a little more focused, and more elegant -- more object orientation and inheritance to simplify the number of different things to implement, etc..
Mar 26 23:15:53 <jel> few more opportunities for flexibility, too..
Mar 26 23:17:08 <jel> for instance, we can run completely normal voting systems off AMPU now.. juries could be selected from anywhere in theory, not just the forum/initiative in which discussion is taking place.
Mar 26 23:17:47 <speek> makes sense
Mar 26 23:18:09 <jel> that would still require extra code beyond what's planned initially, but still.. the potential to implement standard representational democracy or direct democracy in it's entirety is a good selling point =)
Mar 26 23:18:15 --> ComKong ( has joined #ampu
Mar 26 23:18:29 <speek> yes, i'd agree
Mar 26 23:18:40 <jel> Hi ComKong =)
Mar 26 23:18:46 <ComKong> Hey, everyone. I'm Al Smith of Greetings!
Mar 26 23:18:57 <jel> let me see if I can get the CVS up..
Mar 26 23:19:00 <ComKong> Is Steve here yet?
Mar 26 23:19:14 <jel> ComKong: no.. Steve's working late, I think..
Mar 26 23:19:16 <speek> one idea i'd had was that we should incorporate the ideas of delphi surveys...
Mar 26 23:19:27 <jel> speek: what time did he show up last week, do you know?
Mar 26 23:19:39 <speek> i don't know if that implies much additional work
Mar 26 23:19:42 <speek> i don't remember
Mar 26 23:19:58 <ComKong> OIC, I hope it's ok. I took the liberty of inviting Richard Stallman
Mar 26 23:20:12 <speek> so, hi Al - who are you?
Mar 26 23:20:14 <ComKong> Is that alright with you guys?
Mar 26 23:20:20 <jel> Hi Al, nice to talk to you directly.
Mar 26 23:20:27 <ComKong> I have a site,
Mar 26 23:20:35 <speek> what's it do?
Mar 26 23:20:46 <ComKong> Who are you, Jel, Lee?
Mar 26 23:21:07 <ComKong> We are hoping it becomes a system of votable forums for every issue
Mar 26 23:21:51 <jel> ComKong: yes, I'm Lee. Excuse the slow responses, I'm working on something here, at the minute..
Mar 26 23:22:09 <ComKong> oic, good to speak with you too :)
Mar 26 23:22:28 <speek> that sounds interesting. what kinds of issues are you targetting currently?
Mar 26 23:23:00 <ComKong> Speek, we want this site to enable anyone to start a forum dedicated to any issue anywhere
Mar 26 23:23:11 <jel> ComKong: could I ask you not to bother Richard Stallman too much? He's an incredibly busy guy, and we really don't deserve his attention right now.
Mar 26 23:23:11 <speek> how'
Mar 26 23:23:22 <ComKong> If not this site, something like it somewhere
Mar 26 23:23:23 <speek> how's it differ from a web log like K5 or slashdot?
Mar 26 23:23:55 <ComKong> oic, lee, that's fine with me. He was very considerate and seemed interested in this issue
Mar 26 23:24:11 <jel> speek: what am I working on? Just getting the use cases up in cvs =)
Mar 26 23:24:17 <ComKong> Speek, slash dot is mainly tech issues, right?
Mar 26 23:24:32 <jel> ComKong: yes.. "news for nerds" =)
Mar 26 23:24:36 <speek> that's a cultural thing, not an attribute of the software
Mar 26 23:24:59 <speek> which raises a point - what are the technical differences between AMPU and K5?
Mar 26 23:25:00 <ComKong> so, this would be simple to use and designed for everyone, for any issue
Mar 26 23:25:06 <jel> ComKong: can I ask you to send me what he said about AMPU, since Steve's unavailable right now?
Mar 26 23:25:38 <jel> ComKong: yes, simplicity is the key.
Mar 26 23:26:01 <ComKong> no, i examined slash dot's voting system, ours would be different in that everyone could vote on every post, any plurality of negative votes beyond a small minimum would delete the post
Mar 26 23:26:05 <jel> ComKong: if there are any complex features, they'll be hidden off the main screen, where experts can find them, and others can ignore them.
Mar 26 23:26:36 <ComKong> yes, gell, simple to use, a fifth grader should be able to use it with no problems
Mar 26 23:26:53 <speek> i see those issues as configuration problems
Mar 26 23:27:05 <speek> doesn't affect how the back end is coded
Mar 26 23:27:13 <ComKong> prolly not
Mar 26 23:27:39 <ComKong> I'm not too tech savy, though my wife and i did write this site from scratch
Mar 26 23:27:54 <jel> so, speek.. have you had any ideas recently (apart from eating burgers? ;)
Mar 26 23:28:02 <ComKong> lol
Mar 26 23:28:09 <speek> i don't eat mammals
Mar 26 23:28:22 <speek> i make a distinction based on order :-)
Mar 26 23:28:26 <jel> Oh, really? That's a coincidence ;)
Mar 26 23:28:28 <speek> as opposed to kingdom
Mar 26 23:28:42 <speek> why, are you a mammal?
Mar 26 23:28:43 <jel> order?
Mar 26 23:28:51 <jel> rofl =)
Mar 26 23:28:51 <speek> mammalian
Mar 26 23:29:06 <ComKong> <---- mongrel homosapien
Mar 26 23:29:07 <speek> i don't know if it's order or family - it's not species...
Mar 26 23:29:17 <speek> not phylum, i don't think
Mar 26 23:29:23 <speek> i'm guessing order
Mar 26 23:29:25 <speek> could be wrong
Mar 26 23:29:47 <speek> anyway, i mentioned above about delphi surveys
Mar 26 23:29:50 <jel> hmm.. so basically, you extend the concept of cannibalism to include your entire order, rather than your species?
Mar 26 23:30:13 <speek> uh, sure
Mar 26 23:30:34 <speek> i don't call it cannabilism though, nor do i make a moral judgement about people who do eat mammals
Mar 26 23:30:45 <speek> it's just me and my preference :-)
Mar 26 23:30:48 <ComKong> Jel, is your thrust to create software which clubs and organizations would buy, then create a master system in which they could somehow incorporate into grand totals?
Mar 26 23:30:49 <jel> Wow.. that's a new one =)
Mar 26 23:31:03 <speek> what's new?
Mar 26 23:31:47 <jel> ComKong: no, it's for anyone who wants to use it. The primary goal is government, but we expect smaller targets to be easier to persuade, and to help influence larger targets, so we cover them too =)
Mar 26 23:32:05 <ComKong> ic
Mar 26 23:32:10 <jel> ComKong: the system can be flexible, so we make it that way.
Mar 26 23:32:23 <speek> ComKong brings up an interesting point about multiple systems interoperating...
Mar 26 23:32:47 <speek> perhaps "trust" between two systems could be defined?
Mar 26 23:32:50 <ComKong> Would all your individual software user groups somehow be incorporated later into a grander scheme?
Mar 26 23:33:16 <speek> ComKong: i don't think that was the plan - we see individual systems as being independent
Mar 26 23:33:46 <speek> for instance, if Debian used a system, and Apache used one, they wouldn't "combine" in any way
Mar 26 23:34:13 <jel> ComKong: yes.. that is part of the strategy. Once, say, all educational departments are using the same system, it is simplicity itself to combine them all into one, in the government department. And it's more efficient to do so, so why not?
Mar 26 23:34:37 <ComKong> We differ in methodology. You seem to want to create truly democratic processes in isolated groups. Whereas, MVC intends to create one system, which all groups could use.
Mar 26 23:35:00 <jel> speek: oh, it was for me. It's entirely possible to run independantly, but the capability of integration should be there.
Mar 26 23:35:14 <speek> What's the difference between multiple systems working together, and one system with multiple forums and groups?
Mar 26 23:35:34 <ComKong> Your ultimate goal, then, is to enable all these isolated groups to form a grand consensus?
Mar 26 23:35:46 <speek> only if they choose to, ComKong
Mar 26 23:35:50 <ComKong> ic
Mar 26 23:35:51 <jel> ComKong: yes.. I see why you would want that, but I've never seen the world suddenly adopt any system universally, and can't imagine it ever happening, so we don't plan that.
Mar 26 23:35:54 <speek> it should be a requirement or forced on anyone
Mar 26 23:36:08 <speek> shouldn't
Mar 26 23:36:12 <ComKong> no, ya can't force anyone
Mar 26 23:36:17 <ComKong> brb phone
Mar 26 23:36:34 <ComKong> wife got it
Mar 26 23:36:40 <jel> ComKong: yes.. we plan to just make a system which is more efficient, more useful, and therefore, a system which will become popular, and spread.
Mar 26 23:37:16 <speek> the key to adoption, i believe, is configurability and extendability
Mar 26 23:37:30 <ComKong> and system interactivity
Mar 26 23:37:36 <speek> the easier it is for a group to customize it for their needs, the more likely they are to use it
Mar 26 23:37:50 <jel> speek: yes.. fill all the niches, for which nothing is available, and be better in areas where competition is available.
Mar 26 23:38:33 <speek> well, "better" is hard to define. Unix didn't win out cause it was better, it won cause it was more easily adopted
Mar 26 23:38:49 <speek> ...way back when, that is
Mar 26 23:38:55 <jel> true =)
Mar 26 23:39:08 <ComKong> I see the problem we're addressing as our attempt to create truly democratic processes for anyone to use, right?
Mar 26 23:39:36 <speek> i see it as creating a tool that can be used to create truly democratic processes
Mar 26 23:39:43 <ComKong> yes
Mar 26 23:39:56 <jel> ComKong: I'm not sure if that's the whole definition of the AMPU Project, but yes.. that's what the team is doing.
Mar 26 23:39:58 <speek> i think, if we're successful, people will begin designing new processes around the tool
Mar 26 23:40:21 <ComKong> yes, customizing it for specific needs
Mar 26 23:40:24 <speek> processes we didn't foresee
Mar 26 23:40:41 <ComKong> i agree with the need for that
Mar 26 23:41:02 <jel> ComKong: Free Software is a method of guaranting that ability to customise software, thus allowing it to fill such niches.
Mar 26 23:41:38 <speek> well, good design has a lot to do with it too :-)
Mar 26 23:41:51 <ComKong> Yes, Richard showed me the error of my thoughts about free software
Mar 26 23:42:03 <speek> lol
Mar 26 23:42:06 <ComKong> It is confusing to laymen like me
Mar 26 23:42:06 <speek> i bet
Mar 26 23:42:19 <speek> what's confusing?
Mar 26 23:42:28 <jel> OK, use cases are up. Phew! =)
Mar 26 23:42:30 <ComKong> That free software doesn't mean free
Mar 26 23:42:37 <jel> =)
Mar 26 23:42:43 <speek> depends on who you are
Mar 26 23:42:49 <speek> and what you want to do
Mar 26 23:42:49 <ComKong> yes
Mar 26 23:43:02 <speek> for the most part, it is free
Mar 26 23:43:13 <speek> redhat "sells" their software, but i download it for free
Mar 26 23:43:15 <ComKong> My wife and I only want to empower "The People" over our governments
Mar 26 23:43:15 <speek> :-)
Mar 26 23:43:26 <jel> ComKong: yes.. it always means liberty, and for the most part it's freely available too.. business folks like to hear that they can sell it also.
Mar 26 23:44:20 <ComKong> i understand. We like the part about the code being available for contributions to be made toward its evolution by anyone with the vision and talent.
Mar 26 23:44:51 <ComKong> Software such as what we are attempting needs to be flexible, constantly evolving
Mar 26 23:44:56 <speek> ya, it means you don't have to spend a cent to get software made
Mar 26 23:45:06 <speek> .... though it wouldn't hurt ;-)
Mar 26 23:45:12 <speek> heh
Mar 26 23:45:31 <ComKong> That's good, since we spent most our cents (sense) on this project already :)
Mar 26 23:45:43 <speek> :-)
Mar 26 23:46:17 <ComKong> I've literally spent the last thirty years attempting this. It wasn't even possible until the advent of the Internet.
Mar 26 23:46:25 <speek> jel: i don't see new stuff on the web pages?
Mar 26 23:46:45 <speek> ComKong: really? wow.
Mar 26 23:46:52 <ComKong> 1972
Mar 26 23:46:53 <jel> an important aspect for me, is that I couldn't afford software development tools when I was young.. Free Software gave me the opportunities that made me what I am today.
Mar 26 23:47:07 <speek> and when were you young?
Mar 26 23:47:17 <ComKong> It afforded you the opportunity
Mar 26 23:47:22 <speek> they didn't have development tools when I was young...
Mar 26 23:47:28 <jel> speek: in system architecture?
Mar 26 23:47:29 <ComKong> lol, im 53 now, speek
Mar 26 23:47:53 <ComKong> oh, when Jel was young, sorry
Mar 26 23:48:04 <speek> jel: ?
Mar 26 23:48:27 <jel> speek: charles babbage? =)
Mar 26 23:48:40 <speek> lol, nah, i'm not that old
Mar 26 23:48:51 <speek> but, i didn't learn to program till i was 24 or so
Mar 26 23:49:03 <jel> speek: you don't see new use cases there in the docs/system architecture section? 31 or so of em?
Mar 26 23:49:27 <jel> speek: try Ctrl-F5, on IE.. frames sometimes don't reload right.
Mar 26 23:49:27 <speek> oh, now i do - perhaps it was cached in my browser
Mar 26 23:50:33 <ComKong> <--- 53 going on 70 It thrills us that young, technically talented people are joining in this quest. We want to tell you that we deeply appreciate all your efforts. :)
Mar 26 23:50:36 <jel> After looking at it on the site, it's still probably quite hard to get an overview.. I'll do a single diagram, asap. You're still on windows, right? Don't have gnome-think around?
Mar 26 23:51:21 <speek> i'm still on windows for another week or so
Mar 26 23:51:45 <speek> i have a question about usability...
Mar 26 23:51:54 <speek> let's say an initiative is posted
Mar 26 23:51:58 <speek> gets discussed
Mar 26 23:52:03 <jel> yep..
Mar 26 23:52:08 <speek> someone thinks a task needs doing to find more information
Mar 26 23:52:11 <speek> so, they post a task
Mar 26 23:52:28 <speek> now, that task needs discussion and eventual voting for or against it
Mar 26 23:52:39 <speek> then, another task gets posted
Mar 26 23:52:41 <speek> repeat
Mar 26 23:52:41 <ComKong> separate forum?
Mar 26 23:52:57 <speek> eventually, solutions are added, which may or may not require new tasks
Mar 26 23:53:05 <jel> speek: there are separate information requests,
Mar 26 23:53:06 <speek> each of which needs to be discussed and voted on
Mar 26 23:53:45 <ComKong> "sub" forums?
Mar 26 23:53:45 <speek> i'm thinking that for each initiative, a rather large number of sub-initiatives, tasks and the like will be generated, all needing discussion and resolution
Mar 26 23:54:09 <jel> ComKong: yes, it's a hierarchy.. there are lots of subforums.
Mar 26 23:54:15 <speek> does this become too cumbersome, or is it something we need to adapt to, as a culture?
Mar 26 23:55:06 <jel> speek: you can post initiatives which are just problems, and discuss solutions etc in there. You can request information, suggest and cancel different solutions, etc..
Mar 26 23:55:25 <jel> then, when you find a solution or two that seem reasonable, launch a jury to vote on the best one.
Mar 26 23:55:28 <speek> and, when a solution is voted on, who exactly goes and makes the tasks necessary for that solution? How are task force members chosen? Are those additional initiatives that required discussion, solution proposals and voiting?
Mar 26 23:56:18 <jel> A solution is essentially a summary, and a list of tasks to complete that solution. When the solution is voted for, all those tasks become a taskforce, which needs to be fulfilled.
Mar 26 23:56:27 <speek> jel: i'm just wondering if the system will be usable for moderately complicated problems
Mar 26 23:57:16 <ComKong> sounds like a complication. Perhaps each forum group should decide which parts of the problem need their own forums. Each forum should provide a consensus for a specific issue or problem.
Mar 26 23:57:31 <jel> soo.. you think it will work for big problems, but worry about smaller ones, or the opposite?
Mar 26 23:57:48 <speek> no, moderate and above might be too cumbersome...
Mar 26 23:58:05 <jel> ComKong: that's very similar to we're doing it, yes.
Mar 26 23:58:09 <speek> i'm not saying it is - i'm just wondering and trying to provoke some thoughts
Mar 26 23:58:47 <jel> speek: sure, that's to be encouraged. But I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, yet?
Mar 26 23:59:05 <speek> i'm thinking the system's primary responsibility will be in the organization of all these forums, tasks, juries, solutions, etc in a way that is easy for an individual to grasp
Mar 26 23:59:58 <ComKong> In our design, the forum participants produce the consensus for the solution to a dedicated issue. Then they determine the means of diseminating the results, proclaiming their will. It's up to them.
Mar 26 23:59:58 <speek> i'm wondering if some problems will be so complicated, with so many recursions of new sub-forums, that the original problem will get lost in all the sub-decisions that need to be made
Mar 27 00:00:08 <jel> speek: yes.. there'll be a helluva lot of information in the system. I think, no matter what, it'll take lots of subscription-based filtering, and other methods to narrow things down to what you want to see.
Mar 27 00:00:12 <speek> ...and years could go by before everything resolves
Mar 27 00:01:23 <speek> it makes me wonder if a web UI will be workable...
Mar 27 00:01:35 <ComKong> I wish I had a better understanding of your design
Mar 27 00:01:41 <speek> K5 now is a bit stretched I think as a web application
Mar 27 00:01:49 <jel> speek: well, you know.. that's how complicated things go. But you'll always have the main forum for the master project at the top, with subprojects underneath. As each subproject completes, they report back to the parent, and in that way, things can be grasped as easily as possible. I can't imagine an easier way, yet.
Mar 27 00:01:58 <jel> ComKong: did you read the first IRC log?
Mar 27 00:02:12 <ComKong> I guess, not, where is it?
Mar 27 00:02:27 <jel> It's on the AMPU website, under documentation
Mar 27 00:02:50 <ComKong> oic, i'll read it, thx
Mar 27 00:03:06 <jel> ComKong: that pretty much takes you through the whole process. Things have changed a bit, but not at the fundamental levels, really.
Mar 27 00:03:37 <jel> speek: how does that sound? Is there an easier way, do you think?
Mar 27 00:04:19 <speek> no - i think all this is necessary - i think that's why there's so much beauracracy in government - they need it
Mar 27 00:04:44 <speek> i'm thinking that the UI will have to be something special to handle it all
Mar 27 00:04:58 <jel> speek: yep.. it's no walk in the park ;)
Mar 27 00:05:27 <speek> a web app may be a nightmare
Mar 27 00:05:32 <jel> we're basically talking about bringing the world's affairs to a 17" monitor, after all ;)
Mar 27 00:05:34 <ComKong> We tailored our design to resemble the primary and general elections. Members ratify posts in the forum to promote those posts to a "Results Board" for that forum. Then the general membership can vote on the results only if they don't have time to participate in the forums. Also, vote tallies on the promoted (automatically migrated) post are zeroed in the Results Board giving forum participants the ability to rectify wrong votes in
Mar 27 00:05:39 <jel> 17-inch..
Mar 27 00:05:50 <speek> hey, nothing smaller than 21" for me :-)
Mar 27 00:06:25 <speek> ComKong: people vote up comments as solutions?
Mar 27 00:06:30 <jel> ComKong: yes.. that sounds sensible.. but AMPU is a little too big for that.. we need to do information management, etc.
Mar 27 00:06:38 <ComKong> as parts and pieces to the solutions
Mar 27 00:06:43 <jel> speek: think of the little people =)
Mar 27 00:07:05 <speek> sure, i just think AMPU will a more formalized way of working
Mar 27 00:07:12 <speek> will need -
Mar 27 00:07:43 <speek> but, i like that idea of partial solution
Mar 27 00:07:53 <ComKong> The Results Boards end up being a member ratified list of pieces of the problem and solution
Mar 27 00:08:15 <speek> i could post a partial solution, thinking that, "this at least, has to be done, though there's other things that also need to be done"
Mar 27 00:08:20 <jel> speek: by partial solution.. you mean the subforums to resolve sub-issues, or something else?
Mar 27 00:08:24 <ComKong> Then they can organize it into a Public Mandate if they like
Mar 27 00:08:40 <speek> no, to the original problem
Mar 27 00:08:44 <jel> oh, right.. you mean working out solutions as they go?
Mar 27 00:08:49 <ComKong> the single target issue
Mar 27 00:09:00 <speek> Say, there is an initial step you think must be taken, but further steps are independent of that first step
Mar 27 00:09:04 <ComKong> It's patched together like a quilt
Mar 27 00:09:14 <ComKong> yeah
Mar 27 00:09:36 <jel> yes. =) Hey, we need AMPU now.. just to manage the project =)
Mar 27 00:09:43 <ComKong> It isn't really possible in most cases for one pat solution to be enunciated
Mar 27 00:09:51 <ComKong> lol, jel
Mar 27 00:10:15 <speek> so, if a company wanted to set up a network of computers for employees, one step must be to buy computers, but that's independent of the network consultants that are chosen to assist
Mar 27 00:10:16 <ComKong> But, all participants can vote on the pieces to the whole solution
Mar 27 00:10:29 <speek> jel: I've thought that so many times...
Mar 27 00:11:13 <jel> speek: yup. That's a definite. There are a few other ways of breaking things down, too...
Mar 27 00:11:15 <ComKong> Once all the pieces are present in one document or board, they can re-write the whole in any manner they like.
Mar 27 00:11:27 <jel> The resource management, importing, etc..
Mar 27 00:11:59 <speek> yes, you might choose to force people to break such a problem into smaller sub-problems, each of which is solved independently
Mar 27 00:12:09 <speek> that might be a good thing, actually
Mar 27 00:12:42 <ComKong> Our design enables each piece to the solution to be ranked by the votes of the members, so that the most popular peices of the puzzle are on the top of the Results list
Mar 27 00:12:52 <jel> yes, and then.. even when a decision is made, and a project is started, it's possible for the Taskforce to stop and say.. "you know this isn't working.. you guys need to think of something else."
Mar 27 00:13:31 <speek> jel: oh man, that'll happen a lot, probably
Mar 27 00:13:34 <ComKong> In your design, can the forum participants delete a post?
Mar 27 00:13:45 <speek> if my experience on software projects is any indication...
Mar 27 00:14:31 <speek> by "post" what exactly do you mean?
Mar 27 00:14:32 <jel> ComKong: no. They can expire it -- say that it no longer applies, or say that it was dumb, and take it back, but it's always on record somewhere.
Mar 27 00:14:40 <ComKong> In our design, participants are encouraged to delete everything which isn't the best idea and most pertinent to the solution.
Mar 27 00:14:50 <ComKong> This is a post <-----
Mar 27 00:14:52 <speek> an initiative can be ended without a solution
Mar 27 00:15:07 <speek> ah, no comments shouldn't be removable
Mar 27 00:15:19 <ComKong> why, not
Mar 27 00:15:31 <speek> because they are part of a conversation
Mar 27 00:15:32 <jel> ComKong: no.. we log everything. It's only fair. Users are only presented with the most important information initially, but they can find whatever they seek.
Mar 27 00:15:43 <ComKong> So every, "me too: would still be there archived for all time?
Mar 27 00:15:45 <speek> remove one coment, and the whole conversation suddenly makes no sense
Mar 27 00:16:03 <speek> they get modded down
Mar 27 00:16:21 <speek> and you, as a user, can filter out posts below a certain threshhold
Mar 27 00:16:26 <ComKong> But it's still all there to be thrashed through for any new participant?
Mar 27 00:16:42 <speek> yes
Mar 27 00:17:02 <jel> ComKong: yes.. it's up to the community itself to build an atmosphere where silly things don't happen. People rarely misbehave in important briefings.
Mar 27 00:17:10 <ComKong> We don't even plan to use threaded discussion format, because if it works, our forums won't be that much to read
Mar 27 00:17:34 <jel> ComKong: we plan to have LOTS of information =)
Mar 27 00:17:44 <ComKong> We hope our members will delete 95% of everything posted
Mar 27 00:17:52 <speek> so, how do people "discuss"
Mar 27 00:17:55 <ComKong> Just the cream remains
Mar 27 00:18:25 <ComKong> Just like we are now, except they vote no on everything which they don't want promoted to that forum's results board
Mar 27 00:18:56 <ComKong> It's a process of refining the true will of the majority
Mar 27 00:19:01 <ComKong> isn't it?
Mar 27 00:19:27 <speek> have you heard of delphi surveys?>
Mar 27 00:19:31 <ComKong> Then we need to separate the chaff from the wheat? KISS
Mar 27 00:19:40 <ComKong> I guess not, speek
Mar 27 00:19:45 <jel> ComKong: lots of people have tried that, and failed. No one has the right to decide what should be said, and what shouldn't.
Mar 27 00:19:47 <ComKong> it rings a bell
Mar 27 00:19:48 <speek> they've been around for a while, and they also are a method of "refining" the views of a group of people
Mar 27 00:20:10 <ComKong> jel, in this way, everyone participating would be opps
Mar 27 00:20:22 <speek> moderation is usually sufficient to filter out useless content
Mar 27 00:20:25 <jel> ComKong: although I see what you're saying about results boards. That makes sense for your project.
Mar 27 00:20:26 <ComKong> Hmmmm... i need to go see them, speek
Mar 27 00:20:57 <ComKong> yes, jel. But who are the moderators? And, why should they have power over the people's discussion?
Mar 27 00:21:09 <speek> everyone is a moderator
Mar 27 00:21:16 <ComKong> in our system, yes
Mar 27 00:21:43 <ComKong> They could even set their own levels of negative deletion, democratically
Mar 27 00:22:04 <ComKong> The problem is that power corrupts
Mar 27 00:22:08 <jel> ComKong: the only difference, essentially, is that our system never actually deletes anything, just makes it less noticable. Therefore, no true censorship can ever be done.
Mar 27 00:22:27 <jel> negative deletion?
Mar 27 00:22:30 <ComKong> A truly democratic system would enable the participants, The People, to make all their own decisions
Mar 27 00:23:05 <ComKong> yes, i see that, but also it makes the archives almost an insurmountable mountain of information to a new participant
Mar 27 00:23:07 <speek> yes, you should check out K5
Mar 27 00:23:58 <ComKong> ks?
Mar 27 00:24:11 <speek>
Mar 27 00:24:26 <speek> stories are submitted by anyone, voted on by anyone
Mar 27 00:24:32 <speek> comments are moderated by anyone
Mar 27 00:24:40 <ComKong> for literature?
Mar 27 00:24:46 <speek> seems to work reasonably well
Mar 27 00:25:04 <speek> no, "stories" is a general term
Mar 27 00:25:06 <ComKong> a means for readers to qualify writing for publication?
Mar 27 00:25:18 <speek> means essay, or something the wrote about that's interesting
Mar 27 00:25:18 <jel> ComKong: information storage is not such a big deal. If people are using a system for all their major decisions, they will be happy to spend the cash on something as cheap as storage is these days. People are talking about putting every TV program made into digital storage. In a world where that is even considered, I think we can handle text on important decisions.
Mar 27 00:25:27 <ComKong> ic
Mar 27 00:25:34 <ComKong> ill check it our
Mar 27 00:26:13 <ComKong> The point, jel, is simplicity
Mar 27 00:26:15 <jel> speek: use cases any help? Guess not? ;)
Mar 27 00:26:20 <ComKong> brb
Mar 27 00:26:56 <ComKong> back
Mar 27 00:27:08 <jel> ComKong: yes, I appreciate that, but deleting things is no simpler from hiding them from view. Until someone needs to backtrack over a conversation, in which case deleted comments cause big problems.
Mar 27 00:27:26 <speek> jel: i'm not sure use cases will ever help me much :-)
Mar 27 00:27:51 <jel> speek: =) OK. I'll work on UI layouts next, then.
Mar 27 00:28:02 <jel> Even if that will be a nightmare =)
Mar 27 00:28:07 <speek> lol, i think i'm just hopeless
Mar 27 00:28:30 <speek> i don't think like most people, it seems
Mar 27 00:28:41 <jel> rofl. Me too. Hey this is gonna be a great project, huh? ;)
Mar 27 00:28:48 <ComKong> I can see that a complete archive of everything ever uttered in a forum might be of value, Ok, lets suppose that a complete archive is available, but the forum only contains those planks which were approved by the participants?
Mar 27 00:29:20 <ComKong> speek, me neither, for sure
Mar 27 00:29:24 <jel> well, I've noticed it's tough to figure out what you mean, speek, but thinking different is good. AMPU needs that =)
Mar 27 00:29:28 <speek> the forum contains everything - comments, rejected proposals, selected solutions, etc
Mar 27 00:29:37 <speek> you as user can select what you're interested in
Mar 27 00:30:29 <ComKong> well, maybe the default setting should be only ratified comments, they they could elect to see a complete transcript, for their reading pleasure
Mar 27 00:30:31 <jel> ComKong: think of it as zooming in.. if you want to see more detail, then you can read EVERYTHING, if not, you can see the important points.
Mar 27 00:30:44 <speek> jel: sometimes i think the best approach is to have a hero just start building, sidekicks then contribute as they can
Mar 27 00:31:05 <speek> and when done, you have an idea of what is wanted and what is needed, and you throw it all out and build something maintainable
Mar 27 00:31:06 <jel> speek: I know a song about that =)
Mar 27 00:31:15 <ComKong> <--- comical side kick want cookie
Mar 27 00:32:14 <ComKong> I feel most people won't want to participate in democratic processes because they fear it will consume too much time.
Mar 27 00:32:24 <jel> speek: yes, I might have got some code going before inviting people to sign up, but the discussions have been really helpful, so I don't think it matters so much if everyone can't work initially. Do you?
Mar 27 00:32:51 <speek> no, i don't think it matters
Mar 27 00:33:25 <speek> but that's just it - the discussions have been helpful
Mar 27 00:33:28 <ComKong> To get the general public involved, the basic process should be as direct to the point as possible
Mar 27 00:33:32 <jel> ComKong: that's where our approach stands out.. we don't demand that everyone vote on everything, like direct democracy does (it's dd's primary flaw, probably) -- we let people choose what they're interested in, and ignore the rest.
Mar 27 00:33:36 <speek> to me, the use cases leave me empty
Mar 27 00:34:13 <ComKong> our system is the same, only those interested in a particular forum will be involved in the discussion
Mar 27 00:34:20 <jel> ComKong: it's not a matter of being to the point, IMHO.. people only care about the things they are interested in.. to ask them to vote on other things is non-sensical
Mar 27 00:34:29 <ComKong> But, the results boards will be there for general ratification
Mar 27 00:35:21 <jel> ComKong: yes.. our system lets anyone look through any information on the system.. call up vote results, look through documents, cross-reference information, find solutions which worked for similar problems in other forums, etc
Mar 27 00:35:27 <ComKong> If each forum produced a couple dozen results on dedicated pages which one could quickly read/vote through, democracy could be possible
Mar 27 00:36:21 <jel> ComKong: we don't want people to quickly vote. We want them to pick a few topics important to them, and then sit down and consider all the evidence, like in a jury.
Mar 27 00:36:49 <ComKong> Most people wouldn't even participate in a forum, only click through the results of those forums in which they feel they are knowledgable
Mar 27 00:37:30 <ComKong> This way the actual forum results are left to those who are most motivated to resolve the problem
Mar 27 00:37:56 <jel> Well, there is that option.. you don't have to read things you are already familiar with, but the process will provide that information, and an environment which encourages participation in problem solving.
Mar 27 00:38:04 <ComKong> I want a system which includes the disenfranchised
Mar 27 00:38:36 <ComKong> The "Silent Majority"
Mar 27 00:38:49 <jel> it's about time to wrap this up until next week, guys.. agreed?
Mar 27 00:39:04 <ComKong> Of course, we are at opposite ends of the problem
Mar 27 00:39:08 <jel> ComKong: sorry, it's 00:38, where I am =)
Mar 27 00:39:17 <ComKong> oh, i could talk about this perpetually
Mar 27 00:39:26 <jel> ;) me too =)
Mar 27 00:39:29 <ComKong> where are you, jel?
Mar 27 00:39:33 <speek> sure, till next week
Mar 27 00:39:33 <ComKong> lee
Mar 27 00:39:34 <jel> Northern Ireland.
Mar 27 00:39:39 <ComKong> oic
Mar 27 00:39:42 <ComKong> Im in Texas
Mar 27 00:39:48 <ComKong> and you speek?
Mar 27 00:39:48 <speek> ny here
Mar 27 00:39:57 <jel> yes.. the spread is good for ideas, and such =)
Mar 27 00:40:11 <ComKong> ic, well I hate to end this. I never get to talk about democracy :(
Mar 27 00:40:22 <jel> OK.. we'll call that a wrap then. 'night folks =)
Mar 27 00:40:31 <ComKong> nite :)
Mar 27 00:40:40 <ComKong> Invite Steve next time, jel
Mar 27 00:40:45 <ComKong> :)
Mar 27 00:40:52 <jel> ComKong: he couldn't make it, most likely.
Mar 27 00:41:15 <ComKong> oh well, I enjoyed it. Hope i didn't monopolize it with my views
Mar 27 00:41:19 <jel> ComKong: send me Richard's comments, would you?
Mar 27 00:41:30 <speek> bye
Mar 27 00:41:30 <ComKong> yes
Mar 27 00:41:33 <-- speek ( has left #ampu
Mar 27 00:41:33 <ComKong> bye
Mar 27 00:41:51 <jel> ComKong: views are good. But read the first IRC, it will help you get oriented a lot =
Mar 27 00:41:52 <jel> )
Mar 27 00:41:59 <jel> bye =)
Mar 27 00:42:00 <ComKong> i will
Mar 27 00:42:02 <ComKong> thx

**** ENDING LOGGING AT Wed Mar 27 00:42:05 2002