CivicEvolution - pushing information up to the meta teams
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
Feb 14 23:22 UTC
Short link
Brian Sullivan wrote:
> A "base team" is group of actual participants, and this forms the base
> of the pyramid.
> A "meta-team" consists of all of the members of the constituents teams
> below it in the pyramid.
>
> meta level 2
> / \
> meta level 1a meta level 1b ...
> / | \ / | \
> 20 20 20... 20 20 20 ....
>
> Meta level 1a membership includes all of the actual team members below
> it. ... Likewise, Meta level 2 will consist of
> of the actual team members below it, in this case the actual members are
> 2 levels down.
I take it the meta progression (upward) is two-fold, toward:
i) a consensus, having the agreement of more and more members; and
ii) the integration of the content, contributed by the members below,
into a single, coherent consensus document
> In a base team, members have full posting and voting rights. Currently,
> voting consists of endorsing key points posted by you and your immediate
> teammates. I will expand voting to all of the content type in the team
> which currently includes comments and resources as well as key points,
> and may soon include "value statements"
>
> When 50% of the members of a base team endorse a comment, key point, or
> resource (etc) it is automatically posted to the meta team dialogue
> directly above it.
>
> In a meta team, members have full voting rights on all content in the
> meta team dialogue. Content that gets endorsed by 50% of the
> constituent base team members is automatically posted to the meta team
> dialogue directly above it.
The votes, then, are tokens of consent to elevate content. But what
happens once it is elevated? How is it integrated with other content
(previously elevated) to yield a coherent document?
Perhaps a special member (an editor of sorts) has responsibility to
integrate the newly elevated content? Integration, in any case, would
involve changes to both new and old content. Suppose content (old or
new) is changed by the integration, is it then subject to recall by
the members below, who elevated it in the first place? Or is there
any other way in which the members below can *withdraw* from the
consensus, as it forms above them?
--
Michael Allan
http://zelea.com/