--- Log opened Sun Feb 24 00:00:31 2013
06:38 < conseo> mcallan:  What do you mean in (3) "Mnemonic for action key." http://zelea.com/project/votorola/s/gwt/stage/talk/mock.html ?
13:42 < conseo> mcallan: could we show the poll title on the bottom of the polltrack's hud? at the moment is still cryptic imo
14:19 < mcallan> conseo: mnemonic is like "alt-k" for example (like you see in ui menus, e.g.) and this info goes in the auxillary tool window, popped by '+' button
14:21 < mcallan> (polltrack hud we can fix, if users have problem. not possible to do any work that's not top priority, urgent)
14:23 < mcallan> (users including u, ofc ;-)
15:16 < conseo> how does 'alt-k' reflect the update process?
15:21 < mcallan> press alt-k (or whatever your action key is) and the harvester gets a kick
15:21 < conseo> mcallan: we had that the poll's display title already once in the polltrack, right?
15:22 < conseo> it was infeasible, if i remember correctly
15:23 < mcallan> poll name is in track, never title afaik
15:23 < mcallan> what was infeasible?
15:25 < conseo> it is in here: http://benjamin.polyc0l0r.net:8090/voff/wap?wCall=psPollspace&wCallback=__gwt_jsonp__.P0.onSuccess
15:26 < conseo> the title is already in the data, so it wouldn't be too difficult to extend the hud...
15:27 < jabowery> I've been an insurgent libertarian on state platform committees for the GOP in the US during the last 2 presidential election cycles and, of course, have found the process, to be kind, incredibly stupid.  I've talked to other folks on the platform committee here in Iowa about using online tools to make the process meaningful and many seems open to the idea.
15:29 < jabowery> The biggest single impediment to making the platform process relevant is that the product is a laundry list of wishful thinking that is so large and vague that there is no way to hold elected officials accountable.
15:30 < jabowery> I have at least 2 counties in Iowa now interested in taking action to start getting people involved online, but need to find tools that will minimize the "vague laundry list" problem.  Any suggestions?
15:32 < mcallan> welcome jabowery. what specifically do (short of laundry list :-)
15:32 < mcallan> whoops, sry...
15:33 < mcallan> i meant to ask, what's the most important thing u want people to be able to do on-line?
15:35 < jabowery> connect in a meaningful way with their House representatives where "meaningful" entails framing the issues in a way that is most likely to get their social networks involved in passing specific legislation.
15:36 < mcallan> conseo: not sure why u need title in poll track. recommend waiting till we're using the software, and see a need. otherwise, if we delay usage, we will never get anywhere
15:37 < mcallan> jabowery: u want *electors* to be involved in passing bills, right?
15:38 < jabowery> Define "electors".  Is that a technical term of votorola or is it a more general term that has a specific usage here?
15:39 < mcallan> i mean the folks who elect the law makers, e.g. to congress and whatnot
15:45 < jabowery> So an "elector" is a "voter" in an "election" -- with the somewhat pathological case of popular election of "The Electoral College" in the US Constitution where "voters" elect members of the electoral college called "electors".
15:45 < jabowery> I want electors, in your definition, to be involved in passing bills, yes.
15:47 < mcallan> an approach i want to test myself is outlined here: http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/legislative_action
15:47 < jabowery> An aside:  Not all citizens (those entitled to vote) actually vote so there is the problematic definition of "voter" in that an elector (in your definition) who does not vote is sometimes not referred to as a "voter".
15:49 < mcallan> (right, and i work with primary systems too, which adds further confusion. but i understand u, i think)
15:51 < jabowery> Is there a legend for reading that illustration?
15:51 < mcallan> no sorry, not yet. but the green dots are un-elected persons, and yellow are elected...
15:52 < mcallan> ... and open circles are impersonal "pipes"
15:52 < mcallan> (arrows are primary legislative votes)
15:53  * mcallan is putting 'legend' on todo list
16:09 < jabowery> The pink "document" icons presumably are the alternative egislations proposed by the person or "pipe"
16:11 < jabowery> A "political platform" might then be thought of as a coherent and comprehensive set of legislative proposals agreed to by a political party.
16:13 < mcallan> here however it's just a single bill being hammered out (single issue), and the pink docs are variant drafts of that bill (yes)
16:14 < mcallan> (other bills would have their own trees/forests of participation, ofc)
16:20 < jabowery> My statement gets to the heart of the problem with political platform output:  If you don't treat a political platform as a single piece of legislation -- that is a single set of changes to the body of law -- it becomes impractically vague and unwieldy as a tool of consensus.
16:21 < jabowery> In order to minimize the size of the platform -- and thereby expose the key issues around which consensus must crystalize -- you need to expose all the political tradeoffs and redundancies as such.
16:22 < jabowery> This is a far larger task than enacting a typical piece of legislation.
16:23 < jabowery> At the point in time when the political parties clash in the legislative body, the tradeoffs and key issues shift and different processes emerge that break things down into individual legislative acts -- although ideally one could replicate this process to overcome partisan politics.
16:25 < mcallan> so u see bill as part of whole platform, which includes many bills. do i understand?
16:26 < jabowery> For instance, in the US GOP there is a clash between libertarians and traditional conservatives regarding drug laws that can be resolved merely by coupling two things:  striking from the books any federal drug laws and devolving federal drug enforcement agencies to the states so that it becomes a states rights issue.  However, so long as a "plank" in the "platform" for eliminating federal laws on drugs is not coupled with the devolution of
16:26 < jabowery> drug enforcement to the states -- two pieces of legislation coupled to one -- there will never be consensus.
16:27 < mcallan> right, so those bills are two parts of a larger whole (?)
16:27 < jabowery> If a "bill" (that is an independent set of changes to the existing body of law) truly is independent (which it never is) of other bills, then it can be broken out in its own separable "plank".
16:29 < mcallan> yes, i think i understand. so suppose (for simplicity) there are just two bills B and C ...
16:29 < jabowery> The point is sort of like any problem in ontology or taxonomy:  You want to follow Occam's Razor which is to not multiply entities (bills) beyond necessity.  This clarifies the structure of the politics.
16:30 < mcallan> maybe we should talk jabowery. do you run skype?
16:30 < jabowery> yes
16:30 < jabowery> my name on skype is jabowery
16:30 < mcallan> u free to talk now?
16:31 < jabowery> just a minute
16:33 < mcallan> i'll turn my skype box on... takes a few minutes...
16:33 < jabowery> ok, i'm skype enabled
17:08 < conseo> mcallan: just to clarify:
17:09 < conseo> hovering the updatebutton will show a tooltip with the mnemonc alt+k. both clicking the button and hitting alt+k on stage should trigger update
17:10 < conseo> this update shows information in the tooltip/hud instead of the 'update forums <alt+k>" text (?)
17:12 < conseo> something like "fetching forum updates" ... "up-to-date" ?
17:24 < mcallan> co don't understand, u on skype?
17:24 < mcallan> conseo: ^
17:55 < conseo> in 30 mins
18:00 < mcallan> ok, plz ring me
20:06 < mcallan> away running
--- Log closed Mon Feb 25 00:00:49 2013