--- Log opened Tue Mar 05 00:00:08 2013
11:30 < conseo> not sure. you are still making a virtue of vote mirroring itself. vote mirroring only has meaning in a meaningful practice and there it is mandatory as we found out. but it definitely does not come first, getting the practice right is more important. paul actually describes what is needed pretty closely. vote mirroring is not needed in this stage yet, but it will become a problem sometime in the process and it will be
11:30 < conseo>  difficult to fix then
11:31 < conseo> mcallan: yet u jump to a black and white conclusion to force people into replying to your rhetoric question at the end (which now comes in every mail because of the new practice i guess). but this doesn't feel right to me
11:31 < conseo> we still have to discuss the practice and then decide to cooperate for the sake of it imo
11:32 < conseo> the ag-meinungsfindungstool graphics actually puts us in #1, #2, #3 imo and nowhere exactly, since discussion happens in the external media, position forming in the (external) poll-wiki and voting is only a visualization of the current totality of position forming
11:33 < conseo> we are glue and this glue depends on the practice, it is not possible to draw an ontology of the system, only of the practice imo. there should be things like assent, resources and probably arguments and positions, but not "things" like position forming in the diagram
11:34 < conseo> yet you have just accepted to be #2, why?
11:35 < conseo> paul actually points out that the practice is the problem and vote-mirroring solves a partial problem of its totality, so to speak (the totality of including every possible contributer/voter). but we cannot speak about "freedom" and formal structural ideas without doing so from inside the practical process imo
11:49 < conseo> anyhow, don't feel personally attacked, i am happy that you discuss these issues, i just don't want to span a wall of text there by disagreeing with you in their mailing list
12:54 < conseo> i mean ur practice illustrations already show that and we should be able to point paul to the closest practice. which one is it?
12:59 < conseo> probably legislative action, yet a petition (here as so often purely to directly oppose executive action) is not a law: "Legislative action is the necessary completion to any issue that takes the form of a statute, or other law."
13:02 < conseo> inside paul's 4 activists group all "find consensus rules" (validity seeking, position space rationalization, patch relaying and consensus bridging) would apply, while the process is still broken in internal and external
13:03 < conseo> we probably have to renew this activist formation strategy as a group (of activists) agitating a passive group of petitioners, but it has to even better apply than the current (broken) process to this dumb way of petition building imo
13:06 < conseo> (meaning u as an activist of a petition can still send paper letters around and receivers are free to engage for instance, but signing (and not caring about the process) is still enough)
21:10 < conseo> (i have fixed the polltrack hud left-side alignment, ready to pull btw.)
--- Log closed Wed Mar 06 00:00:26 2013