--- Log opened Wed Mar 06 00:00:26 2013
01:21 < mcallan> conseo: re mirroring.  i feel i do only what i necessary to explain why i cannot cooperate with agm as i would like, and to point to the danger of what they are doing.  this last is obligatory.  if i don't point to the danger, then i am responsible for any harm that ensues (basic engineering ethics)
01:22 < mcallan> must get back to u about paul, i have not yet understood what he's saying
03:06 < mcallan> re their 1,2,3 diagram.  i think it has errors/confusions.  i replied so that marc would understand me despite those
04:16 < mcallan> down with king tut ;^) http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/votorola/rev/e54aef825091
04:19 < mcallan> conseo: ^^^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgTPH5y1-ZI
06:38 < conseo> mcallan: hehe, will reply later
12:07 < conseo> thx for fixing and applying the patch :-D
12:40 < mcallan> welcome!  turns out it was my z-index bug
13:15 < conseo> mcallan: paul has organized a very successful petition campaign as it seems. i mean where would i go as such an activist in the votorola practice atm.? i tried to reflect on how this relates to the practices
13:19 < conseo> he criticizes the ag-meinungsfindungstools system in his mail: "it is a nice diagram but dit anyone of you started an initiative or
13:19 < conseo> referendum about anything, local or otherwise? I doubt it. There ar a lot missing in my opinion."
13:19 < mcallan> you'd go here (i'm just making amendments now, before submitting), because (without thomas) we're held up for lack of practioners: http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/Knight
13:20 < mcallan> but paul is not making too much sense imho, and does not look carefully at things
13:21 < conseo> but our design does not depend on consensus anymore, its only the totality to get the necessary support in the effort from others
13:22 < conseo> i mean that we try to build through arguments and open building of a consensus the best possible approach
13:23 < mcallan> that's what i mean, he's not making sense (thinks consensus = unanimity), and i don't thing we can talk reasonably with him at the moment
13:24 < mcallan> (in his exchange w/ thomas a while ago, he was picking a fight)
13:24 < conseo> ok, do you have a link at hand?
13:25 < mcallan> no (but my impression is, not worth time.  personal problems we cannot help with)
13:26 < mcallan> (meaning no disrepect to him)
13:27 < conseo> i am rather pointing out that he is right that such a simple start as a petition is at the moment not in the practice. the "act on it"-group rather depends on official or public institutions of liberal democracy (like a law in legislative action or assembly)
13:29 < mcallan> it's in the practice, but i haven't documented yet (either immediate action or admin action)
13:29 < conseo> ok
13:30 < conseo> i see :-)
13:30 < mcallan> u will be interested when i doc.  there's new ideas in those i haven't had time to explain
13:32 < mcallan> oh, and also idea u and i came up with (which i'm too sleepy to recall completely, but i know is important) - that's going to be in there too
13:34 < mcallan> yes, 2013.2.17 skype talk, separation of powers in plan-specific executive actions (both for immed and admin actions)
13:35 < conseo> ok
13:35 < conseo> the knight foundations proposal of ed reads very well
13:36 < mcallan> yes, we have good chances i think
13:36 < mcallan> it's good ed is helping
13:43 < conseo> yes
13:44 < conseo> ideally, i just want to point that out, if our practices are solid, we should be able to satisfy even people like paul who have grievances against us
13:44 < conseo> i am speculating that we are in a good position to start collecting arguments and dissent in a structured manner
13:45 < conseo> this is not about him, just reading this, which is probably to mundane for you, tells clearly what the practice has to cope with on the ground (if people volunteer): http://www.democratie.nu/wiki/index.php/Some_guidelines_for_an_effective_organization
13:46 < conseo> it is a very one-dimensional perspective, but often movements, even unions, build through these issues
13:47 < conseo> (unions because of a single, probabl. in itself for outsiders strangely peculiar, labour problem)
13:49 < conseo> i think we fit, but some parts are missing, so i am curious about ur immediate action :-)
13:49 < conseo> (once it is ready)
14:03 < mcallan> Knight's money would suffice to energize the pioneer group and clear the current roadblock.  or are u asking about a particular issue, like urban gardening e.g., and the design for motivating that?
14:06 < conseo> maybe, only we don't have such an incident which really sparks public interest. we would still need a movement or we would do something else (sponsoring some feat. in e-dem) which would probably not help removing the roadblock but rather form a theoretically motivated practice
14:08 < mcallan> don't understand your answer.  pioneers or urban gardeners?
14:17 < conseo> i mean that you cannot start a "movement", you only can do so from a concrete issue like "urban gardening", "stopping the high-way" or "defend a particular law of bargaining" ... and in these cases money is not an honest motivator for the practice
14:21 < mcallan> i'm seeking money to pioneer the practice, which is the concrete issue.  see proposal to understand what i mean
14:34 < conseo> yes, but we need concrete issues, the practice in itself does not exist, only as an application to social problems.
14:39 < conseo> maybe it is obvious, but we have to be careful of how to think about the practice. all practices we have are there to help processes of spontaneous organisation (or reflection), because we want to make these permanent and reflectable and allow the right people to teak the lead
14:41 < conseo> (or in pauls terminology we want to energize the right people not through the process itself, but rather the process creates the necessary reach)
14:41 < mcallan> we need practitioners to design and prove the practice.  we are doing slow march for lack of practitioners (and other contributors), and knight is best chance to get 1 or 2 of them (maybe even more)
14:42 < mcallan> without people, we have nothing
14:42 < conseo> yes
14:43 < mcallan> give us 3 people who engage in practice hands on in any issue *as required*, and then we will get all other resources we need
14:44 < conseo> but we need the right issue
14:44 < mcallan> no, give us those 3 people. and we get resources for *all* issues in the world
14:44 < conseo> if it is something which only motivates a certain peer group, then we get a subcultural process for some activists
14:44 < mcallan> no, right 3 people -> all issues in world covered
14:46 < mcallan> it's written right in the proposal, "There are two things to understand about this from the outset...
14:46 < mcallan> 2nd being that "if a pioneering leaf group ever succeeds in getting the design and performance of this core process right, delivering on both its purposes, then the entire population will be led into freedom by that success."
14:48 < mcallan> knight's money is not really needed for motivation, only to get people's attention.  because people do not read, and do not understand
14:49 < conseo> i know
14:49 < mcallan> knights money is need to get attention of 3 people...
14:49 < mcallan> the 3 who are going to help us pioneer the practice
14:51 < conseo> (its against the odds that we fit their profile imo, but the effort was already worth it imo, both in regard to clarification of practice and reach)
14:51 < conseo> i hope somebody shows interest
14:51 < mcallan> (but first they're gonna fix the socket *error* that prevents me submitting the proposal ;^)
14:53 < mcallan> already have some emails from interested people, but cannot ask much from them yet.  if knight does not help, some other organization will, there's lots of them
14:55 < conseo> but better i would like to be able to practice it myself right now... the current processes are for me still off the top (because they depend on the long march through institutions). i need some dumb and real practice to be socialized by the practice to understand how it works
14:55 < conseo> i mean i am political but i don't care to draft laws. to reach my goal it is totally the wrong issue to get involved atm. i'd rather start a petition or concrete action in the direction and might then form a law later for instance
14:56 < conseo> (and i am not a lawyer btw. so alone + maybe some friends this is meaningless for me)
14:57 < mcallan> when u like the issue, u can join in practice, no problem.  you and i are not enough
14:57 < conseo> i'll wait for your respective proposals
14:58 < mcallan> submission draft is ready, but cannot post till they fix their site: http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/Knight
14:59 < conseo> i cannot go to people and talk about voting. they don't care. but i can go to them and talk about some economical issue and possible outcome and they do understand and relate. under proper circumstances the possible outcome will motivate their interest. petitions are only a faded shadow, because they are like sparking single lightnings to change politics. they are intertwined though and probably part of many practices
14:59 < conseo> , because it is the only way to influence politics directly
14:59 < conseo> ok
15:00 < conseo> no problem, i will figure this part of the practice out as i need to
15:00 < mcallan> no point in trying to attract *users* "going to people", we don't have tools and practice for them
15:01 < mcallan> need to attract tool and practice *designers*
15:03 < conseo> yes, but u r not political in that sense. i mean i need it, not for world peace, but to bring people together to create value for them, no matter how trivial it is.
15:03 < conseo> just some ramblings...
15:04 < mcallan> you must wait till we have tools and practice, then you can apply it to issues.  you are too far ahead of the game
15:05 < conseo> the revolution always comes too early :-P
15:05 < conseo> just poking...
15:06 < mcallan> :-)
15:06 < conseo> i know, but what we need is hands on experience of real practices, even if we radicalize them in strange ways imo
15:06 < conseo> all resources will come once we help people
15:06 < mcallan> cannot help people, cannot have practice, until we design practice and build tools
15:07 < mcallan> must focus on that.  must be practical  ;^)
15:07 < conseo> hen egg problem. but i am actually trying to point out that we need to frame use cases like paul's and be able to reason how our practice applies, even if it does not apply
15:08 < conseo> it will help clearify what we do and what we mean
15:08 < conseo> practical in this no-mans land cannot come like deus ex machina imo
15:09 < conseo> do you think this would make sense, to take some past movements and describe how our practice would have helped them?
15:10 < mcallan> describe to whom?
15:10 < conseo> to me
15:10 < conseo> to us
15:10 < conseo> (potentially)
15:10 < mcallan> no, how will that bring us 2-3 good people?
15:11 < conseo> we can show how it applies on concrete examples for instance, so people who have no interest in our tools in the first place can criticize our ideas (like paul did with his own example) with the historical examples
15:11 < mcallan> (i could talk to you for 6 hours, and you will refuse to focus on the point.  you are un-focusable, my friend.  but that's ok)
15:12 < conseo> well i tried to think, i don't know beforehand where that leads unless i willingly focus. but this is an issue as universal one can get...
15:12 < mcallan> we would talk and talk, and they would drool...
15:13 < conseo> yes, do your work. it is an interesting idea to me, never thought to apply votorola to the past...
15:13 < conseo> not in this concrete form
15:14 < mcallan> you are thinking we have practice and tools to apply, when we do not
15:14 < mcallan> all we have is work to do
15:14 < mcallan> and we need workers to do it - 2 or 3 will suffice
15:14 < conseo> i know tools are not ready, but tools are almost always behind in a sense.
15:14 < mcallan> and practice is not ready
15:15 < mcallan> and *cannot* ever be ready without 2-3 good, skilled, experienced practitioners
15:15 < conseo> the problem is that the practice u envision is done from (alienated) workers and in that sense (was a point above) one can feal that you discuss mechanically and are not personally interested in the ag-people for instance
15:15 < conseo> this skews the discussion and probably the reasoning with it
15:16 < conseo> i fear
15:18 < mcallan> discussion with ag people is about theory and design, not about getting us practitioners.  separate topic
15:18 < mcallan> i must go soon, getting late
15:20 < conseo> the problem is that u don't even discuss over their system design, while if u'd like to cooperate (not only for the sake of it), u probably would have pointed out that the design is abstracting in a technical way
15:20 < conseo> people need to argue in their domains
15:21 < conseo> interests... i don't know how to call it. do u understand at least something?
15:22 < mcallan> i am pointing to a flaw in their designs...
15:22 < conseo> aaach, difficult and i am wasted as well
15:22 < mcallan> a flaw that will cause harm to people
15:22 < conseo> yes, but it is not the harm stopping them
15:22 < mcallan> yes it is
15:23 < conseo> no way people will energize with this diagram
15:23 < conseo> to paraphrase it
15:23 < mcallan> diagram?
15:23 < conseo> of their "ontology"
15:24 < mcallan> no point helping them with that...
15:24 < mcallan> if they will use it (perhaps unknowingly) to do harm
15:25 < mcallan> must point to the danger itself (monopoly) and see what they say to it
15:25 < mcallan> if they like it, then nobody will cooperate with them.  they are dead
15:25 < mcallan> rightfully so
15:27 < conseo> but they are dead before if they do that. i can tell them myself, maybe u just haven't cared about that. but getting people in the practice comes before vote-mirroring
15:28 < conseo> and vote-mirroring is a facet of the programmability of the process by the user. it is in fact opening all the important data to differing count-engines
15:28 < mcallan> no c, you are mistaken.  it's not a q of vote mirroring
15:28 < mcallan> harm is monopoly
15:29 < mcallan> and i will not help them if they try to obtain monopoly, and destroy my work
15:30 < conseo> puuh this is a complex argument :-)
15:30 < conseo> i mean to argue upon, not urs
15:30 < mcallan> and i'm tired... let's not argue anymore
15:31 < mcallan> gotta sign off in a minute
15:31 < conseo> ok, i'll let u go
15:34 < mcallan> defeated, i slink away...
15:34 < mcallan> but i'll be back!
15:36 < mcallan> gn8
15:37 < mcallan> zip zip away
15:45 < conseo> gn8
--- Log closed Thu Mar 07 00:00:43 2013