<HTML><BODY>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (Wed Aug 30 19:53:20 PDT 2006) Wrote:<br>
<br>
> At 10:00 AM 8/30/2006, raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:<br>
> >I think another big issue is that something like this is actually annoying<br>
> >until you hit the scaling issues. In a forum with say 20 users, you don't<br>
> >actually need it. However, by the time a forum hits the "big time", the<br>
> >system is already in place. Changing it to a system that scales better<br>
> >is harder at that point.<br>
> ><br>
> >I think that a possible method would be to find some community that is<br>
> >suffering from the scaling problem and offer them a solution.<br>
> <br>
> Control the filters and you control the intelligence. This is the <br>
> danger of filters, but, obviously, large-scale communication requires <br>
> filters, for noise grows with scale; "noise" includes not only <br>
> irrelevant information and analysis, but also what is redundant. <br>
<br>
One option would be to create a standard for interfacing of many different<br>
systems. For example, Internet Protocol does not define how any <br>
individual network has to operate. It just defines the interaction<br>
between networks. IP runs as an application that runs on top of <br>
other network protocols.<br>
<br>
The trick for getting something like that to work is to keep the <br>
standard as general as possible while at the same time allowing people to<br>
do anything that they might like. <br>
<br>
For IP, it is things like handling packets and various issues with <br>
assigning addresses and performing routing. Arguably, one of the <br>
flaws of early IP was that it didn't provide a way to do <br>
connection orientated communications. This meant that that <br>
couldn't be implemented, even if the underlying network could<br>
handle it.<br>
<br>
Anyway, for something like a proxy system, you could try to <br>
come up with an API. On the one hand, it could be argued to be<br>
centralised. However, even in open source software, they <br>
still use standards. A good standard is one that streamlines<br>
ensuring compatibility while at the same time doesn't limit<br>
the various methods of implementation.<br>
<br>
If you did a really good job, the API could cover a wide range of<br>
methods. One person might implement it with an online forum/mailing<br>
list and other might implement it with physical meetings and both<br>
systems could interact due to the API.<br>
<br>
> When <br>
> you are searching for information or commentary on some topic, and <br>
> you come across a thread somewhere which discusses it, it is quite <br>
> annoying -- and time-wasting -- to have to pour through a series of <br>
> useless posts of the nature of "I agree," or "That's wrong." (Without <br>
> explanation, so all we get from these posts is one bit, literally, of <br>
> information that is irrelevant unless we have some special reason to <br>
> trust the particular writer, whom, in practice, we don't usually know <br>
> at all.)<br>
<br>
One option here would be to have a button where a person can click<br>
"agree" or "disagree". There would then be a total near the post.<br>
<br>
I wonder if something like a super-wiki would work. This could <br>
have multiple versions of the same article being editted and also<br>
some way of merging two slightly different versions of an <br>
article together.<br>
<br>
> Part of the problem was that they understood "proxy voting" to be <br>
> absentee voting. I quite understand this objection. Someone who is <br>
> not present cannot generally have followed the discussion and respond <br>
> to the various amendments or arguments that may have arisen. <br>
<br>
In fairness, with proxy voting there could be a (large?) group of <br>
people who will insist that there proxies do just that. However, <br>
if they were in the same room as the debate, they would be more likely <br>
to be reasonable. <br>
<br>
I wonder if "asynchronous voting" could help with that. <br>
<br>
Something like:<br>
<br>
Proxies attend town meeting and discuss issue.<br>
<br>
Proxies contact the people they proxy for over the following <br>
week or so and explain what was discussed at meeting and how <br>
they will be voting<br>
<br>
Anyone can withdraw/transfer their proxy at this stage<br>
<br>
2nd meeting held for the actual vote<br>
<br>
This means that nobody can vote unless they have at least<br>
received a report from their proxy about what happened<br>
at the meeting.<br>
<br>
This would allow compromising of one issue against another, <br>
the proxy could say "well I know this isn't what we wanted, <br>
but if we agree, then we get this other thing that we wanted."<br>
<br>
> Rather, as we understand proxy voting, the proxy <br>
> generally casts a vote seen as being in the interest of the client, <br>
> *in the immediate judgement of the proxy.* Because we are generally <br>
> assuming that a proxy is a member of the organization himself or <br>
> herself, we generally assume that proxies will simply cast their own <br>
> vote, and the vote of the client is assumed from that. The systems we <br>
> would set up, in general, would not allow a proxy to cast a vote for <br>
> the client that is *not* the proxy's own vote.<br>
<br>
It could very well come down to organisational "culture". I am <br>
not so sure that there won't be alot of people who won't pick<br>
proxies who are unmovable by debate. Picking a proxy you trust <br>
is hard. Picking one who will vote a well defined way on every <br>
issue is alot easier.<br>
<br>
> His point was that those who want to have access can get it. He's <br>
> right of course. If they want it enough to put in the necessary time, <br>
> which can be considerable, they can generally gain access. That is <br>
> true everywhere. Problem is, the vast majority of people don't have <br>
> the time. So they are effectively shut out.<br>
<br>
The issue is that for any kind of negotiation, there must be a <br>
penalty for not coming to an agreement. Time is often used as <br>
the penalty.<br>
<br>
If a person/group is willing to sit at a meeting for 2-3 hours<br>
and not budge an inch, then it can be implied that they really<br>
care about the issue (or as you say have alot of time on their hands). <br>
This also applies in buisness negotiations, if a person spends all <br>
day and isn't willing to lower their price, then maybe it really <br>
would bankrupt them.<br>
<br>
The Senate Filibustering system is the same kind of thing. If you <br>
are willing to meet the filibuster consditions, then you likely<br>
care more about the issue.<br>
<br>
Hmm, maybe proxy voting could be assumed to be a method to remove<br>
the cost to the individual of being a hold out? (and that would<br>
be a bad thing)<br>
<br>
> Town Meeting allows all citizens of the town to vote directly on Town <br>
> issues by attending Town Meeting. However, there is a huge group of <br>
> Town citizens who are effectively locked out by this. For starters, <br>
> single mothers.... Town meeting is always held in the evening, and it <br>
> can go on late on occasion. There is no absentee voting at Town <br>
> Meeting. And, of course, proxy voting is not allowed.<br>
<br>
Systematic biases are obviously a bad thing. What about something like<br>
this:<br>
<br>
The total amount of time for a town meeting is divided equally between<br>
all potential voters. <br>
<br>
When you set someone as a proxy, you are granting them the right<br>
to use your time allocation.<br>
<br>
Time not used in one meeting can be carried forward to the next (with<br>
probably a limit to how much can be stored). A proxy uses up the same <br>
amount of time for all people he is proxy for, so they all bear the <br>
burden equally.<br>
<br>
No vote on an issue is final until nobody wants to spend any<br>
more of their time trying to convince others to change their mind.<br>
<br>
No meeting may run for longer than the planned duration. A <br>
meeting may end early if nobody else wishes to speak. Votes<br>
which haven't been finalised by then, are tabled until the next <br>
meeting.<br>
<br>
This means that everyone has equal time to speak. If you really <br>
don't want an issue passed, you can have your proxy use up all<br>
of your time holding out and preventing the issue from being <br>
finalised. However, this means that you lose power for other<br>
issues as you have spent all your time on this one issue. <br>
<br>
The advantage is that all voters would be effectively granted equal<br>
time allocations. If you can't attend, you give your proxy the right<br>
to spend your time allocation. Also, it creates an incentive not <br>
to say "vote this way no matter what" as if you do that, then he<br>
will spend your entire allocation blocking that one issue from being<br>
voted on.<br>
<br>
Also, there would probably be a rule that some time (say 25-33%) is<br>
"free" and speakers are picked at random. This would given non-proxies<br>
(who probably have only 30-40 seconds "in the bank") a chance to speak.<br>
<br>
In practice, there might even be a rule where a proxy can say<br>
"... and I speak for 15 more minutes". He wouldn't have to actually<br>
speak, it would just remove 15 minutes from the maximum time the <br>
meeting can run. <br>
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>