Post in CivicEvolution - pushing information up to the meta teams

Michael Allan wrote:
> 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
>
>
Correct, as contributions from the base team are pushed upward by
majority agreement, it represents a larger pool of supporters.

 From base to level 1a requires 11 endorsements.
 From level 1a to level 2 requires 201 endorsements (assuming 20 teams
of 20 members comprise meta level 1a)

Integration of content: this will require experimentation.  In the
initial version, the participants are generating key points, independent
statements (1-3 sentences, < 500 chars).  It is easier to develop a set
of key points than a polished 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?
>
>
There are a few scenarios that will need to be tested.

In one set of scenarios all content is generated by base teams;
integration of content at higher levels actually occurs in the base
teams as a result of feedback to the base levels.  Base team 1 creates
idea1, base team 2 creates idea2.  In meta level 1a, we see each others
ideas and back in our base teams mull over the two ideas and then base
team 1 posts idea1-2 which integrates idea1 and idea2. When half of the
constituents of meta level 1a endorse idea1-2, it will rise to
meta-level2 and the process may be repeated.

In the other set of scenarios, each base team will endorse one or a few
members to act as its foreperson (note I didn't say representative). The
forepersons of the base teams will "meet" in the meta level teams to
promote and deliberate on behalf of their respective teams.  All
constituent teams can view the meta level dialogue but only forepersons
can post.  Endorsement at the meta level might be open to all
constituents or only to the forepersons. Forepersons can be recalled by
their consituents and their actions are completely transparent.

Once the key points have been agreed to, there can be a process of
editing it into a coherent document by a nominated team.  The editing
process would be transparent so endorsed comments would arise to
influence the editing process as necessary.  Finally, the document would
then be deliberated by the teams and put to a vote by the constituent
team members.  If there is a strong minority opinion, they similarly
create a minority opinion document.

In the end we have not only a document(s), but a complete record of the
process through which the ideas and document evolved, clear statements
of minority views, and the record of endorsements for the underlying
principles as well as the final document.

We don't need too many levels to achieve relatively large and
significant numbers.  Assume teams and meta teams of 20, so it is a
pyramid where each level is a power of 20

base team: 20
meta level 1: 400
meta level 2: 8,000
meta level 3: 160,000
you get the idea

I live in San Francisco.  If we had 400 participants strongly engaged in
an issue and developing a policy statement, I think the media and the
city government would pay attention and they would feel compelled to
respond. It would be the start of a new form of civic engagement.