Building consensus online
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
Feb 02 03:41 UTC
Short link
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 11:33:33AM -0600, Steven Clift wrote:
> Anyway, I would love to see someone else's outline for a multi-day
> online agreement/consensus building event that provides some
> specificity on tools, timing, and resources.
>
> Or, perhaps you have a different track ... What is your outline?
PROCESS AND TIMING
Resident A drafts a proposed Climate Change Policy for Minnesota, and
posts it on the Web. Two days later, resident B reads it; copies it;
makes changes; and posts a variant draft. Now there are two variant
proposals on the table.
A day later, C posts a variant of B's draft. But C also *votes* for B
(tentatively). B learns of this; examines the textual differences of
C's document; and quickly copies them into her own. C decides to keep
voting for B, for now.
S and T have no time to draft and haggle, but they do like A's
proposal. Both of them vote for A. U and V, meantime, both vote for
B. At the end of a week or so, the situation is:
A B
/ \ /|\
S T C U V
A week later, D is studying the textual differences between A and B.
She has been following the discussions in A's blog, and the mailing
list of B's 'constituency'. She sees a possible bridge between the
positions of A and B. She drafts a compromise, and explains it to A
and B. They agree (tentatively) to vote for D's compromise draft. (A
has trouble convincing S of this, and is worried about losing S's
vote. But for now, a consensus holds.)
D
/ \
/ \
/ \
A B
/ \ /|\
S T C U V
D's draft now has a 7 vote backing. Consequently D has a measure of
political clout. Other drafters, some with 50 or 60 votes (not shown)
would like to get D's vote (and the 7 others it carries).
They are in discussions with D. This takes time.
At the end of six months, 6000 voters (including 300 drafters) are
participating in the process. The governor's office takes notice.
Approximately 40% of the participants are behind a single consensus
draft; 15% behind another; and the rest are in ever-shifting splinter
groups. The governor feels that 40% is not enough for action. His
advisors have noticed, meantime, that many of the splinter groups are
arguing over technical points of science. After some discussion, the
governor decides to release funds for scientific research aimed
specifically at the points of contention.
After two years (in which particpation has grown), a 55% consensus has
emerged. Minnesota officially adopts the leading draft as its Climate
Change Policy.
During the same period, a 30% consensus has formed on a rival policy.
The rival policy has, in turn, been adopted by a rival candidate for
the Governor's office (a continuous election for Governor having been
going on, simultaneously).
TOOLS
Policy drafts may be composed in HTML, and posted on Web sites, each
drafter posting her own variant on her own site. This requires no
special tools, aside from the usual text editor, file transfer
utilities, and Web browser. Text may be copied from drafter to
drafter by simple cut-and-paste from browser to editor.
This approach to collaboration is called 'recombinant text'. Formal
collaborative tools might be employed, such as a slimmed-down version
of textbender (optional):
http://zelea.com/project/textbender/
The voting mechanism is a delegate cascade. Votorola may be used for
this purpose, off-shelf. It is about 2 months from alpha, 4 from
beta:
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht
Extending it to cover elections for policy (integrating the voting and
drafting aspects) would be another month.
RESOURCES
At least one software developer is needed. We already have that
developer working. We post new versions of running code frequently.
The code is open source.
A systems administrator is needed to set up an electoral server in a
single county or municipality (e.g. in Minnesota). Others will be
needed, later, to extend the process to other counties and
municipalities. They will probably be unpaid volunteers (just like
the developers are), with experience in mail servers, Web servers, and
so forth.
No financing is needed, and no formal organization. In roughly 5
months (less if another Web developer joins in) a beta of the process
outlined above could commence in Minnesota. (Most likely, it will
already have commenced in Toronto.)