All posts in the topic Building consensus online (Short link)
Summary
- There are 52 posts — by 19 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Michael Allan at 2008 Apr 01 19:06 UTC
I've found that most online tools and techniques bring our differences of
opinion rather than forging agreement within large groups online (over say 15
people). The Internet does a great job at getting issues on the table, allowing
like-minds to coalase, and when done right builds respect among those with
differing opinions.
Can take this further?
Let's say that we want move online from the statement of positions or surveys
that show current opinions to agreement or consensus on actions or proposals
among the vast majority of say 1,000 people.
What would you do? What have you seen?
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org
That's an interesting challenge, but could I take a step back?
Local issues forums, to take one example, do often beget sharp differences of
opinion and little sign of consensus-building. But Wilhelm found that national
political discussion forums in the US have the opposite tendency, towards what
he called a "homogeneity of in-group members".
Beware, then, of apparent consensus, which may be undesirable!
With most e-tools, in fact, it's not easy to tell how representative the
user-base is of the relevant population: whose interests are represented and
whose are excluded? That in turn makes it difficult to be sure whether the full
range of issues and perspectives really has got onto the table. All I can say
is that if there are tools that can do this, then at least you know that a
subsequent consensus-building process would be meaningful.
Simon Smith
One possibility (not sure if it applies in your case) is a voting mechanism such as a delegate cascade. It tends to coalesce votes and encourages consensus. http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#delegate-cascade I'm implementating it within an open electoral system (Votorola). The sampling errors that Simon mentions would be less of a concern for that application. Its user base is intended to approach the size of the population (electorate). I'm trying (with less confidence) to ground the system's design in social theory. Unforced consensus is crucial to Habermas's theory of communicative action, just as it's crucial to the design of the electoral system. (I'm hoping to find other correlations, and maybe make predictions from them.)
Steven Clift wrote:
> I've found that most online tools and techniques bring our
> differences of opinion rather than forging agreement within large
> groups online (over say 15 people). The Internet does a great job at
> getting issues on the table, allowing like-minds to coalase, and when
> done right builds respect among those with differing opinions.
>
> Can take this further?
>
> Let's say that we want move online from the statement of positions or
> surveys that show current opinions to agreement or consensus on
> actions or proposals among the vast majority of say 1,000 people.
>
> What would you do?
Run a de Borda preferendum (see www.deborda.org).
1. First you need a human + computer process to make sure you have the
full range of options.
2. Then you need people to come together in groups to draft wordings for
options that (a) give them what they need, but (b) don't alienate so
many others that they would put your option last.
3. Run a vote using a preference ranking system, where everyone has to
order the options from best to worst.
4. Calculate the highest consensus option using a de Borda count. This
simply adds up 1 point for a last choice, 2 points for a second last
choice and so on.
5. If one option has over 75% of the maximum possible mark, then go for it.
6. Otherwise, try to merge the leading options into a new one combining
the advantages of both, offer people the chance to redraft their
options, and run another vote.
This process finds what people will settle for if they cannot all get
their first choice. In trials in Northern Ireland, it has even found
consensus between Sinn Fein and DUP supporters, in the years before
money brought them together in government.
Note that this only covers options on one issue. If the best solutions
require trading off different questions (you get A if I get B), then a
system based on interest-based negotiation (as in the Harvard
Negotiating Project and some of John Zeleznikow's systems for mediating
divorces) would be better.
Hi, I would like to submit that what you are talking about here can be addressed by using a form of argument, dialogue and/or debate mapping. In addition, I have authored a computer supported discourse mapping approach called consultation mapping, which is aimed at doing many of the things you have raised. It functions to represent the issues and positions of participants and display the range of views in a forum. The application of consultation mapping resembles a process called the 2nd Generation Systems Approach designed for dealing with Wicked Problems. An example of my mapping can be viewed at http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/ Kind Regards, Ricky Ohl [Bmgt/Bcom(Hons)] **************************************************** PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you are not the addressee(s), please disregard the contents of the e-mail, delete the e-mail and notify the author immediately.
Hey Steven,
My name is Bob Leming and I get called Lem.
By way of introduction I work with a partner in a small consulting company,
Communishare Consulting, here in Philadelphia. We are currently working
intensively with the American Friends Service Committee.
I have just brought my Dowire Profile up to date.
At the AFSC we are focused on the power of bringing together small groups of
5 or 6 for collaborative work & collaborative learning - and we are excited
with the results.
I will be very interested to hear the insights that others on this list have
re building a concensus across large groups.
One platform that provides tools that take steps in this direction is the
Actions Options Tool. This tool allows Activist Organizations to post
Actions that are then broadcast to all of the other Activists using the Tool
in that Region. Each organization is invited to vote on each Action. Votes
currently include Co-Sponsor, Participate, Support, No Support or Abstain.
To see the Tool in action see: www.ilcpj.org/actions/index.php?start=0&np=6
To learn more about the tool see: www.actionsoptions.org
The tool is being deployed across the Peace, Justice and Environment
Network: www.pjep.org
I am the volunteer facilitator for the Connecticut / Rhode Island PJ&E
Network, which is just starting to gain momentum.
A key is to have the facilitator stay in close touch with the activists in
the network and to stimulate participation - which can be labor intensive.
The goal of the project is to build first awareness and then
collaborationand concensus amongts the Activists in support of each others
work.
Bob Leming
Philadelphia
<email obscured>
Simon Smith noted: Local issues forums, to take one example, do often beget sharp differences of opinion and little sign of consensus-building. But Wilhelm found that national political discussion forums in the US have the opposite tendency, towards what he called a "homogeneity of in-group members". Beware, then, of apparent consensus, which may be undesirable! Reply and outline ... I am starting from our Issues Forum premise that you we are starting with participants from across the political spectrum with diverse views on the topic at hand. I am also suggesting that the event and the outcomes be described in a way that make it clear the goal is to come to some agreement with a release value that quantifies minority opinions/options. So here is an example - Minnesota's Governor appointed a Climate Change Advisory Group - http://www.mnclimatechange.us - with 56 members - http://www.mnclimatechange.us/MCCAG.cfm - who recently approved 50 recommendations for the Governor and legislature - http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/24/climate/ - imagine either taking what they have produced as fodder for a 1,000 to 2,000 person two week online event (consultation) or step back and figure out what interactive and accessible online infrastructure could be designed to support input into such a report or the crafting of agreement among participants. You'll note that they did an excellent job providing access to the documents generated to support the in-person process, but how might we take it further. Up until now, I've felt the Internet is better at getting issues on the table, but that in-person/telephone connections are best when it comes to deciding or negotiating. But why not push the Net a bit further? Is anyone aware of a government or civil society task force making political recommendations like this that used the Internet to gather input, allow two-way interaction among interested parties, and/or use online tools between meetings to accelerate or develop consensus or greater agreement? So let's imagine a two week online event on what Minnesota should do about climate change (or some other issue or a set of top themes at our 150th anniversary as a state) ... Minnesota Listens A two week online exchange among Minnesotans about our future. Topic and Panel Development - 3 Months Preparation - Draft short discussion point documents - Gather short videos, photographs and other mixed media to create contextual starting point that is screen readable - Secure two major keynote speakers - one to open the event, one to close - Craft small set of expert panels for participant Q and A and high quality debate Pre-Event Promotion - Over 2 Months - Attract 1000-2000 registered participants prior to the event - Seek participation to better ensure diverse representation - geographically, politically, ethnically, gender, age - Recruit a mix of "average citizens," interest groups, community leaders, and elected officials - Pre-event interest/opinion survey Open Online Event Prime online event participants with e-mail newsletters/updates before and daily through the event. W-Th - Event Opening - Keynote #1 - Panel #1 F-Sa-Su-M - "Home Room" Hello - Start two-way interactivity in small private discussion spaces of 15-20 members - Develop a format where everyone says hello (posts something) in this "safe" environment - Tell as story about X - topically related - Assign participants in stratified manner based demographics to create a diverse mix Tu-W-Th - Major Thematic Debates - Public, moderated and facilitated - Hire writers to produce daily summaries sent to all participants via e-mail - Produce issues summary and questions from debate for deliberation in the small groups F-Sa-Su-M - "Home Room" Small Group Deliberation - Discuss issues summary questions as a group - Answer preliminary survey questions individually with report to group - Require group to development and report various agreements via structured form aggregated across all small groups - Allow path for "agree to disagree" or minority position reports - Writer/staff rapidly synthesize small group results and report to all participants Note: Additional public or private group discussions could also be designed such as a discussion among local elected officials, etc. A focus on the time required for participation is essential. Tu-W - Closing and Public Poll - Final synthesis report release on website, to all participants via e-mail, media promotion - Final Keynote - Allow broader public to rate/rank/vote on produced recommendations for X weeks after the main online event closes This is my rough cut at how one might craft a **well-funded** high e-touch online event/consultation with the goal of moving the results beyond statements of difference or a basic online survey based just on expert scoping of the issues. What would you do differently? What do you like about the format? Would this be worth the $250,000 or $500,000 or $50,000 it might cost to produce this? Or better yet, share your outline for the online event/consultation you'd like to see. Steven Clift E-Democracy.Org
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:12:02AM +1300, Steven Clift wrote: > Or better yet, share your outline for the online event/consultation > you'd like to see. I would outline something radically different. But it would require an expanded goal. Instead of public comments on a limited set of *existing* policy proposals, the goal would be to discover *all* proposals that could achieve public consensus. In that case, we might take an approach similar to open legislative drafting: "Just as legislation can be opened, so can policy. Distributed drafting can generate a diverse body of policy ideas, while cascade voting simultaneously pulls them together, resulting in one or more consensus documents." http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht Consensus would be quantifiable with this approach. It would be measured as the size of the voting group that backs the leading consensus document, vs. the overall number of participants (ideally the full electorate participates). Lack of consensus would also be quantifiable. It would be measured as the distribution and size of the divergent interest groups. Textual differences among their sub-consensus documents (one per divergent group) would often reveal the reasons for their inability to acheive a broader consensus. If anyone is interested in this approach, I can point to further details.
Steven Clift wrote:
> I've found that most online tools and techniques bring our differences of
opinion rather than forging agreement within large groups online (over say 15
people). The Internet does a great job at getting issues on the table, allowing
like-minds to coalase, and when done right builds respect among those with
differing opinions.
>
> Let's say that we want move online from the statement of positions or surveys
that show current opinions to agreement or consensus on actions or proposals
among the vast majority of say 1,000 people.
>
I've been giving this a lot of thought, as regards several projects I'm
involved in, but I keep coming back to a somewhat broader question: Has
anybody seen any approaches - online or NOT online - for building
consensus among groups of any size.
I'm led to this question by my involvement in several long-term planning
efforts - one for our Church (as a Board member), a technology planning
action for our school system, and a longer-term strategic planning
effort for the schools. That, plus 37 years in the ARPANET/INTERNET
community wrestling precisely with the dichotomy between the Internet as
soapbox vs. the Internet as a tool for getting things done.
I keep coming back to the observation that strong leadership, and strong
organizations, get things done; while committees and crowds don't.
At the simplest level - picture a business meeting of 6 people around a
table (all examples from personal experience):
- a staff meeting, called by a clear-thinking, decisive leader, can move
quickly, reach decisions, and move to action
- a committee meeting, with a strong chair, and a clear agenda, also
tends to get things done - be the chair someone who drives the content
of the meeting ("ok, I've heard enough, here's what we're going to do")
or just drives the process ("ok, we're going around in circles, it's
time to make a decision - will somebody please frame a motion")
- a committee meeting, with a weak leader, or with nobody in charge,
seems rarely to get anywhere - and things can get particularly perverse
in a room filled with Type A personalities (it can also get pretty
entertaining - is anybody else watching "Celebrity Apprentice?")
- now scale things up - to a company, a corporation, an Army: the
organizations that seem to be effective are ones with strong leadership
(think Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, or Jack Welch, or Gen. Eisenhower
during WWII).
- compare that to a town meeting, or Congress
- when there's less structure, it seems like a strong leader is even
more central to getting things done (think "corporate culture" as
epitomized by the old Hewlett-Packard, think JFK as motivating a
generation to action, or Martin Luther King, or, for that matter, Hitler)
Of course, there are some clear perversities here:
- strong EVIL leaders with strong organizations (e.g., Hitler) can do a
lot of damage
- week leaders, with strong organizations (think Congress) tend to go in
circles and get little done
- the same organization will do better or worse depending on who's in
charge (think any number of corporate failures and turnarounds, or the
contrast between different U.S. administrations)
Hi Miles
In your last email you wrote:
> ... Has
> anybody seen any approaches - online or NOT online - for building
> consensus among groups of any size.
Did you see David Newman's response on 21 January where he outlines a
process that finds "what people will settle for if they cannot all get
their first choice. In trials in Northern Ireland, it has even found
consensus between Sinn Fein and DUP supporters, in the years before
money brought them together in government
Note that this only covers options on one issue. If the best solutions
require trading off different questions (you get A if I get B), then a
system based on interest-based negotiation (as in the Harvard
Negotiating Project and some of John Zeleznikow's systems for mediating
divorces) would be better."
Seems a good starting point? Apologies if you had seen it or you feel
this doesn't meet your needs.
Peter
This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the
permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are
scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept
liability for any loss
or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or
omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email
entering the
University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the
University.
>In your last email you wrote:
>> ... Has
>> anybody seen any approaches - online or NOT online - for building
>> consensus among groups of any size.
Most hard-driving process is the Consensus Workshop Method. It's astoundingly
integrated. I've used it for small groups up to 135 people at once, by myself.
The basic model can be applied to online sessions too, but lose the
face-to-face effect.
see thorough description: Brian Stanfield, The Workshop Book.
see light touch / chapter in: Laura Spencer, Winning Through Participation.
take training from any "ToP Trainer" (for Technology Of Participation)
Thanks all. There are two threads I see: 1. More Agreement - Measuring/encouraging agreement by a largest part of the group possible with a bit of process, back and forth, and structure that forces a group to make a joint statement (even with minority reports which I would think are necessary in an online environment gathering people with weak or no ties) 2. Group Consensus - Imagined by an image like this - http://www.ica-usa.org - a smaller group gathered often with a lot at stake to with some sort of pressure to come up with the best possible decision everyone can live with and hopefully embrace. My large scale online event outline definitely is in the first area. A lot of my skepticism about online collaboration (another term) among people who do not usually work together (other than online advocacy campaigns that pop up to fight _against_ something) was reinforced when I met with a researcher who studied "CSCW" or computer supported collaborative work. He said, after 25 years of research they determined that people just don't want to collaborate and that if you still want to pursue this, the optimal group size was two. However, the next theory they were working on was developing series of twos - so for example creating small groups that then negotiated with each other in series of twos. So, my thought about private small groups (influenced by Weblab's small group dialogue experience - http://www.weblab.org/sgd/evaluation.html ) that would be brought through a process to report as a group in via an online survey suggests a focus on broader agreement with a path for new ideas and options that can bubble up rather than developing strong consensus. In terms of leadership, I think you need a mix of facilitators assisting every small group and quick summarization of what's coming through the small groups and the overall process. A "daily e-newspaper" highlighting public results that creates an incentive for active participation seems essential. The vote/rating idea at the end (perhaps compared to an entrance survey) is my way of allowing the results to gain more legitimacy with the media and decision-makers based on broader participation. 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 - how would you do something low low cost using a blog or various free tools across the Internet. It might be that for $5,000 you could generate 50 percent of the quality, engage 20 times more people and afford to do something ten times instead of once. What is your outline? Cheers, Steven Clift E-Democracy.Org
Miles Fidelman > Sent: 01 February 2008 14:10
> > Steven Clift wrote:
> > I've found that most online tools and techniques bring our differences
> > of opinion rather than forging agreement within large groups online
> > (over say 15 people). The Internet does a great job at getting issues
> > on the table, allowing like-minds to coalesce, and when done right
> > builds respect among those with differing opinions.
> >
> I've been giving this a lot of thought, as regards several projects I'm
> involved in, but I keep coming back to a somewhat broader question: Has
> anybody seen any approaches - online or NOT online - for building
> consensus among groups of any size.
This prompts me to ask whether anyone involved in e-democracy has employed the
established techniques of 'participative enquiry'
that have been used in community focused extension work. Could these
techniques be adapted for use where there is no face-to-face
interaction?
'Participative enquiry' is very much really "bottom up", with major inputs from
the community members to identify "the problem",
identify potential solutions, select the most appropriate solution, devise an
action plan and then supervise its implementation.
This differs from classical extension work where the extension agent would
usually come in with a pre-set agenda even if he/she used
various community focused techniques to spread "the message".
Also, 'participative enquiry' is different from 'participative research', in
that 'participative enquiry' is about a community being
helped to solve a real problem, not just helping a researcher to learn more
about a problem as part of a research project.
'Participative research' is valuable, but it has a different place in the
scheme of things.
James
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.18/1254 - Release Date: 31/01/2008
20:30
Hi Miles, Steve and all,
I think Miles did a good point. Consensus, decissions, actions... are usually
better reached when there exists a core group of people which are determined to
attain them. Could a group of "strangers" who meet in a virtual space, reach a
consensus on a delicate subject? Probably not or, even if they do: what would
that consensus be worth? Could it lead to sustainable collective action by the
group members, or even the general citizenry?
As part of our FOSS project Kyosei-Polis, which aims to provide a virtual
environment for municipal civic participation, we have soon realized that no
single "technical gadget", even if it is a web4.0 wonder, will be able to do
the work.
Civic participation thrives when real human beings -composed of their very
human worries, interests and capabilities- stand behind it. And thus, for the
different phases involved in taking collective action (recognizing a problem,
bringing together a group of people that worry about it, imagine possible
actions, formulate a main plan of action, share it with other interested
parties, improve it, bring citizenry into the picture, improve it further,
involve public authorities, improve it further, launch it, etc.) need a
different amount of people to carry them out.
Using a voting mechanism (as proposed by D. R. Newman) that aggregates
individual preferences and proposes the optimal compromise, taking into account
second and third best choices of the 1000 participants, and allowing to have
discussions to improve and merge the best rated options... is a good approach.
But at the end: who would guarantee me, as a participant (or even as a
non-participant), that the 1000 people casting their preferences are the right
ones? Why should I believe that public authorities behind the initiative are
not unfairly influencing/manipulating the process (as is usually the case)?
At the end, you need to be able to generate legitimacy and credibility for the
whole process, which actually started much before the 1000 people got their
hands on it. For each of the increasingly crowded discussion phases described
earlier, you need not only to provide the tools for reaching consensus and
meaningful deliberation, but also to guarantee transparency and clear
accountability.
To guarantee transparency, technical tools can certainly help but are not
enough: you also need to consider the procedural framework and even the
institutional framework that surrounds the deliberative exercises.
For our project, we have reached the conclusion that our system shouldnt try to
provide tools that do the work for the users, but tools that help the users to
help themselves to do the work. Empower those who want and need to be
empowered, with tools, procedures and institutional arrangements that are
sustainable and help them to help themselves.
What does it means in concrete? It means that the system will enable all
participants to continuously appraise the quality and fairness of the process.
It means that public authorities will not have any monopoly on public
participation: anybody will be able to raise issues and start participatory
discussions around it. It means that there will be third party institutions
whose main responsibility is to guarantee the procedural correctness of the
collaborative exercises. These institutions would have to achieve a strong
credibility as neutral players through their compromise with fairness, and
would be continuously audited. They would appoint facilitators (which we call
serenos a word that in Spanish means both calm/cool-headed/self-possessed and
night watchman ;-) and midwifes to honor Socrates maieutics). These
facilitators are also provided with tools to help the group to have inclusive
and goal-driven deliberations, which reach consensus and prepare for subsequent
actions and collaborative exercises.
For example: how would the consensus for 1000 people be reached, on a municipal
issue? Well, what would actually happen is that 1 or 2 people would first
recognize the issue, and find (with the help of our system) other nearby people
who share their concerns; they would start discussing about it, both in
cyberspace and later in meat-space too. They would draft a proposal, which they
would like to discuss with a broader set of interested parties, probably
including local authorities and Civil Society Organizations. Third party
facilitation would be called, to start a public discussion, which could combine
on-line and off-line activities, and which probably would ignite some other
independent parallel discussions. An agreement would be reached to handle the
results got so far to the scrutiny of the whole city inhabitants and the local
media. Interested citizens could, with not too much effort, provide their
perspective and criticize/improve the proposal.
If, by the time 1000 people get to discuss about the issue, you have already
had a lot of work done by smaller groups, which has been performed in a
transparent, honest and mostly unpartisan way... those 1000 people would
probably not need to go back to the basics, but concentrate on finishing off
the work and expressing their adherence to the proposal.
So... sorry for this long entry, which maybe lost track of the original threads
subject. My main message is: there is no one-shot magic bullet process for
reaching consensus. Consensus, compromise and collective action are reached
through a complex process of multi-level deliberation, where distinct people
and groups contribute with different degrees of effort and compromise.
If we want to facilitate broad citizen Consensus on relevant public issues,
using online-tools and systems... we certainly need to consider the procedural
aspects and even institutional aspects of e-Participation as much as we
consider technical aspects and consensus building gadgets. Thats why our
project will try to extend the participatory design approach of FOSS projects,
to also consider the procedural and institutional dimensions that would
surround our systems operation. For this, well try to involve representatives
of all interested municipal groups (politicians, civil servants, citizens,
CSOs, local media, etc.) in the design of the system. This is a very long term
effort, but we think itll be worth.
Best regards,
Pedro (Asociacin Ciudades Kyosei, www.ckyosei.org)
PS: Since our aim is to initially operate on the Latin-American area, our
projects working language is Spanish. Sorry for that! :(
I've been very interested in following this discussion, in light of other
things going on for me personally. I just got press credentials (as a blogger)
to cover the American Group Psychotherapy Association annual meeting in
Washington DC later this month.
Groups are powerful things. They can be used therapeutically. They can be
used to find concensus, They can be used to make disover things that
individuals might not be able to ferret out. The goals of the group, together
with the size and cohesion of the group are all important factors of what
groups can accomplish.
The online component is simply one additional factor, which depending on the
other factors may be very significant, or very insignificant.
Enough rambling thoughts for right now.
Aldon
P.S. To Miles, I don't think I'll end up making it up to Boston tomorrow after
all.
I've been thinking a bit more about this whole issue, and a couple of
thoughts came to mind while driving and listening to PBS.
Markets are a form of group decision making - particularly capital
markets, and more particularly capital markets where very large players
are butting heads.
In essence, when companies, or mutual funds are moving large dollars
around, they're placing bets on the future - for example moving money
from investments in oil to investments in wind or solar technology (as,
for example GE is doing a lot these days). Unlike votes, there's real
money involved, and if you bet right you win big, if you bet wrong, you
lose big - which sort of makes people think before casing their "votes."
In some cases, we have different players betting competitively - making
investments in different approaches to a problem. Down the road, maybe
one approach works, the other doesn't, or both don't, or maybe both do.
Or think of auction markets - such as the recent auction of C Block
spectrum. Somebody wins, and gets make money with the resource; but the
loser gets to keep their money and take it somewhere else. Of
sometimes, as in the spectrum auction, somebody (Google in particular)
bid the price up so high that a set of rules have been activated that
requires whomever ultimately wins to make the resulting network open to
all comers - which is a win even to some of the losers.
One can also envision an auction market - say involving a situation
where there can be only one winner - where the loser's money ultimately
gets combined with the winner's (3 carriers bid for spectrum, the losers
end up with their cash turned into stock in the winner). A choice has
been made, and now everybody is in the same boat.
Maybe there's something in there as a mechanism for societal-scale
decision making - as long as little players have a way to aggregate
their cash to level the playing field with big players. Somehow,
conflating dollars and votes, making it important to actually think
about decisions, and providing a return on making good decisions is a
start towards something.
Miles
p.s. You might wonder what I was listening to on PBS to spark such
thoughts. Why Marketplace, of course. :-)
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.)
I agree with James.
We had recently done a bottom-up community initiative in a rural village in
India where we put together members of the community and asked them to
identify what was their most burning issues? And how do we solve them. We
could get many ideas and we zeroed in on one and got a consensus to work
together to get over their first problem and then proceed with the next.
More details offline, if some one is interested.
best,
Kris Dev
Socail Activist
India.
I think these answers might help us put this conversation in context:
-What is the largest *online* consensus ever reached?
-What is the largest *offline *consensus ever reached?
A hypothetical question: how many citizens would have to agree to a single
health care plan in a country of 300 million in order for the mainstream
media or politicians to pay attention? Are we talking 1 thousand, 1
million, 10 million, or more? Or does the mere fact that this consensus
happened on the Internet prevent any chance of credibility with "real"
people? I hope not, but I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:54:55AM -0500, Lucas Cioffi wrote:
> I think these answers might help us put this conversation in context:
> -What is the largest *offline *consensus ever reached?
> -What is the largest *online* consensus ever reached?
(I've been reading up on this, so I'll try an answer from the book.)
Offline, the numbers are large because consensus is actually at the
root of society. We agree on common frames of reference, and they
define a big chunk of our social world. What's interesting is *how*
we come to agree, because we're never forced into it. We remain free
to test the limits, or even to ignore them in favour of eccentric
alternatives. Consensus is therefore tentative, and must continually
be renewed. It is renewed (according to social theory) through
discourse.
So, our tools/media for building consensus will follow this example,
and facilitate:
1) never ending, continual discourse
> A hypothetical question: how many citizens would have to agree to a single
> health care plan in a country of 300 million in order for the mainstream
> media or politicians to pay attention? Are we talking 1 thousand, 1
> million, 10 million, or more?
Those numbers would tell more to a technician (like me) than to a
politician. We know that health care concerns are nearly universal,
so the numbers could only be telling us about the popularity of the
process/medium in which people were being asked to participate. So:
2) open to all, inviting
(The numbers that a politician would need are the proportions for and
against. She would also look for patterns of disagreement, and
ultimately the reasons. Then she'd figure out what to do, and where
to lead.)
> Or does the mere fact that this consensus
> happened on the Internet prevent any chance of credibility with "real"
> people? I hope not, but I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.
Right, because we're interested in real consensus, not 'virtual'. For
credibility, we'd need to bind online actions to real people.
Votorola (for example) uses authenticated voter lists, in which online
identity (email address) is tied to name and street address.
3) authentic, credible, verifiable results
Finally, in addition to the possibility of consensus, there must be an
incentive to actually acheiving it. The politician goes to work
online; building bridges, enlarging her constituency, and moving
interests closer to action. (In my last post, D plays the role of a
politician.) And the voters want action on their interests, of
course, so the politician need only show them the way forward.
4) action on the consensus
Action would naturally follow. Any consensus on policy that emerged
from an open process (and was able to maintain itself) would find
support from candidates in the next election.
I think only Steven Clift, David Newman, and now I (in my previous
post) have proposed full outlines. My own proposal is somewhat
radical, but does anyone see a fault with it? I'm open to advice and
criticism.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 07:16:35PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Markets are a form of group decision making... > Unlike votes, there's real > money involved, and if you bet right you win big, if you bet wrong, you > lose big - which sort of makes people think before casing their "votes." Hi Miles, More perceived value in money than in votes? That would mean that people have more trust in the economic system (at a nuts and bolts level) than in the political system. No news there, I guess... I like the suggestion that the currency (votes) ought to be better tied to the goods (action) for which they are exchanged. Because the voters who pay the cost are clearly disconnected from the actors who deliver the goods. But how to connect them? Habermas sheds light on this, highlighting the differences between a consensual currency (votes) and an economic one (money). Economic transactions can proceed without any dialogue between parties. There is no need to discuss economic issues with the cashier at the supermarket when paying for groceries. The wheels of industry turn silently, under control of pricing signals. But politics is different. Political transactions involve sharing of information, learning and knowledge creation. The purpose is to discover collective goals and means. So it's deeply social. The only way to strengthen the connection between the vote-currency and the goods is to strengthen the connection between the voters and the politicians. And probably the only connector for that purpose is dialogue. That's one of the advantages of cascade voting: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#delegate-cascade Does anyone know of an alternative?
Lucas Cioffi wrote:
> I think these answers might help us put this conversation in context:
> -What is the largest *online* consensus ever reached?
> -What is the largest *offline *consensus ever reached?
>
Good questions!
I'm not sure, but there's a good case to be made that ratification of
the U.S. Constitution might be the largest offline consensus ever
reached - what with the representative drafting of it, followed by a
huge amount of debate (both in pubs and cafes and in the media - can you
say Federalist Papers?), followed by a national vote.
Michael Allan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 07:16:35PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> Markets are a form of group decision making...
>> Unlike votes, there's real
>> money involved, and if you bet right you win big, if you bet wrong, you
>> lose big - which sort of makes people think before casing their "votes."
>>
>
> Hi Miles,
>
> More perceived value in money than in votes? That would mean that
> people have more trust in the economic system (at a nuts and bolts
> level) than in the political system. No news there, I guess...
>
> I like the suggestion that the currency (votes) ought to be better
> tied to the goods (action) for which they are exchanged. Because the
> voters who pay the cost are clearly disconnected from the actors who
> deliver the goods. But how to connect them?
>
Somehow the phrase "campaign contribution" comes to mind.
A while back, there were several efforts to build tools that modeled
Robert's Rules for an on-line discussion.
Deme and e-liberate were two examples, but the efforts seem to have
stalled. They seemed like a good idea. Anybody know of any similar
efforts that are more current?
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 09:47:49AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > I like the suggestion that the currency (votes) ought to be better
> > tied to the goods (action) for which they are exchanged...
> > But how to connect them?
>
> Somehow the phrase "campaign contribution" comes to mind.
For disconnecting people from the process, and weakening their belief
in its legitimacy? It's an efficient device. Political parties can
exchange the contributions for mass media services, to blast
propaganda at the voters. They can manufacture a 'consensus'. It's
quite efficient; it makes perfect sense from an economic point of
view. (And we can explain the sense of it in our propaganda, so that
society itself is trained to accept its disenfranchisement, and to
call it 'freedom'.)
Michael Allan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 09:47:49AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>>> I like the suggestion that the currency (votes) ought to be better
>>> tied to the goods (action) for which they are exchanged...
>>> But how to connect them?
>>>
>> Somehow the phrase "campaign contribution" comes to mind.
>>
>
> For disconnecting people from the process, and weakening their belief
> in its legitimacy? It's an efficient device. Political parties can
> exchange the contributions for mass media services, to blast
> propaganda at the voters. They can manufacture a 'consensus'. It's
> quite efficient; it makes perfect sense from an economic point of
> view. (And we can explain the sense of it in our propaganda, so that
> society itself is trained to accept its disenfranchisement, and to
> call it 'freedom'.)
>
well, I was actually thinking: money has become the currency of
politics, only thinly disguised as votes
big pots of money (corporations, unions, advocacy groups, ... "special
interests") -> media campaigns & campaign contributions -> votes ->
influence -> action
Miles Fidelman wrote: > Has anybody seen any approaches - online or NOT online - for building consensus among groups of any size? There are many participatory techniques which are designed to do this, some of which have already been mentioned by others things like consensus conferences, citizens' juries, deliberative polling, citizens' panels and charettes. One thing they have in common is that participation is controlled participants are either selected randomly or they are supposed to be representative of the entire interested public. That seems to be key in terms of fairness and legitimacy. On that note, let's compare the processes described by Pedro, Michael and Steven, in terms of who's involved at each stage (David was less specific about this). Steven had: Stage 1 *a few* experts draft alternative Stage 2 *1000-2000* participants take part in structured consensus-building process, initially split into *small groups, *whose recommendations are synthesised by writer/staff [BTW is this just a professional job? Shouldn't it be made more participative?] Stage 3 *broader public* can vote on the recommendations Pedro described: Stage 1 *one or two people* identify the issues, *cascading to others* via a campaign-like process Stage 2 *small groups* discuss the issues, with facilitators Stage 3 alternatives presented to *wider public* via media Michael had a more organic process of building from *individuals'* proposals to a *wider consensus* modelled on political campaigning. So in each version there's a movement from small-scale to large-scale discussion over a period of time, although Steven incorporates a temporary shift back to smaller groups during the event, partly to aid relationship-building. But who exactly are the participants? Stage 1 (bringing issues to the table) involved invited experts (Steven) or politically-active individuals/groups (Pedro and Michael). Stage 2, the consensus-building process itself involved a larger number (let's assume it's 1000 people in each case) recruited as: a representative citizen panel (Steven ideal case), those members of the public who respond to media publicity (Pedro) or a bottom-up coalition of supporters who coalesce around the rival proposals (Michael). Then in all three cases the whole of the public is invited to confirm the decision by vote (stage 3). My opinion is that a combination of the three models would be needed to ensure fairness and legitimacy. Getting the issues on the table can usefully involve experts, but it's the stage of the policy process where special interests should also be invited to state their cases if we want to get * all* the issues and preferences onto the table and to ensure greater buy-in by those groups. This could perhaps be followed by a coalition-building phase, but as noted above, the consensus-building exercises which are widely used are *not* built on this kind of recruitment, but are designed to ensure that participation is broadly representative. This a/ increases the likelihood that the consensus will reflect the real views of the whole political community, and b/ (assuming that participation is not only representative but seen to be so) increases the legitimacy of the consensus among the public. In any case, the different numbers involved at each stage implies that a combination of ICT tools might be needed to facilitate each part of the process. My main concern would be over how realistic it is to get those numbers involved in an intensive consensus-building exercise, particularly if they are to be recruited to represent the spectrum of social interests and demographic groups in the population. In reality we often have to rely on advocates for certain groups, especially deprived groups, such as the community organisations or service providers that work with them. PS I'm now going to contradict myself by citing an example from the field of spatial planning where a less controlled approach, using virtual imaging with forums, chats and online polls, seemed to produce high rates of participation and remarkable consensus over reconstruction proposals in three Dutch cities (without ensuring representativeness). See http://www.epractice.eu/cases/1033 My knowledge of these cases is only second-hand, so I'd be interested if anyone else could comment in more detail about the participation processes themselves. What I do note is that they allowed relatively long timescales for the process. Simon Smith, Centre for Digital Citizenship, Institute of Communication Studies, University of Leeds.
Simon Smith wrote:
> Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> Has anybody seen any approaches - online or NOT online - for building
consensus among groups of any size?
>>
>> There are many participatory techniques which are designed to do this, some
>> of which have already been mentioned by others things like consensus
>> conferences, citizens' juries, deliberative polling, citizens' panels and
>> charettes. One thing they have in common is that participation is controlled
>> participants are either selected randomly or they are supposed to be
>> representative of the entire interested public. That seems to be key in
>> terms of fairness and legitimacy.
>>
it also seems like these have another thing in common: operation within
some established framework that gives them legitimacy - e.g., a jury
operates within the context of the larger justice system -- some
official body is convening the jury, citizen panel, etc.
which is a bit different than building consensus among a group that does
not have an official charter of some sort
>> On that note, let's compare the processes described by Pedro, Michael and
>> Steven, in terms of who's involved at each stage (David was less specific
>> about this).
>>
>>
<snip>
>> Steven had:
>> Stage 1 *a few* experts draft alternative
>>
<snip>
>> Pedro described:
>> Stage 1 *one or two people* identify the issues, *cascading to others* via
>> a campaign-like process
>>
>>
<snip>
>> Michael had a more organic process of building from *individuals'* proposals
>> to a *wider consensus* modelled on political campaigning.
>>
>>
It seems to me that the initial question is: how does an issue get
raised, and how does that initial group get convened.
If we're talking an officially sanctioned process, as in convening
juries, this is easy: a recognized, legitimate authority raises the
issues (cases) and selects the juries/experts (or conducts polling, or
what have you) - and either mandates participation (e.g., jury duty) or
solicits and vets volunteers. If the authority acts in good faith, then
the results of the process get funneled into decisions and actions.
If we're talking a grass roots or other effort, then there seem to be
two different situations, each warranting different models, and for
which different tools might be appropriate:
A. Issues where some individual, small group, or organization raises the
issue; self-defines themself(ves) as experts, frames the discussion and
then goes public. In this situation, it seems like we're talking about
the "marketplace of ideas" - where competing ideas vie for attention
and validation/support from the broader public. Legitimacy comes from
a combination of the message, the folks associated with the message, and
ultimately how well it's presented to and received by the broader
public. The political campaign metaphor is a pretty good one -
particularly when viewed through the lens of ballot initiative
campaigns. Other models that seem to apply are: form an organization,
solicit membership, contributions, grant funding, etc. Turning an idea
into a commercial product or service is another way of bringing ideas to
the public (think about investment funds focused on social interest
investing, for example). There are probably some good lessons to be
learned here from the Dean campaign and MoveOn, not to mention open
source software efforts (Apache, and various Linux efforts are good
models for how large groups of people converge around projects and
actually get real work done, mostly mediated by software tools).
The more interesting, and challenging case - and the one I think we're
grappling with in this discussion - is:
B. Emergent issues, where nobody is driving the train, but lots of
people are starting to think about an issue - and maybe the case where
or lots of people are driving related trains, but with little or no
coordination. Global warming and changing energy use patterns comes to
mind as a good example. Here the question is: how can all this
amorphous activity be channeled toward some form of consensus, leading
to action - rather than remaining amorphous and possibly canceling out
by working at cross purposes. (Or maybe the question is: how do we move
forward rather than achieving gridlock).
There seem to be (at least) three answers, two of which are the ones
discussed above:
- a formal process and authority takes up the issue
- one or more groups take up the issue and compete in the marketplace of
ideas (and/or the marketplace), and hopefully the good ideas win out,
the bad ones die out (one can see a hybrid as well, where formal
authority creates a marketplace - e.g., the government increasing funds
for climate change grants)
> My main concern would be over how realistic it is to get those numbers
> involved in an intensive consensus-building exercise, particularly if they
> are to be recruited to represent the spectrum of social interests and
> demographic groups in the population. In reality we often have to rely on
> advocates for certain groups, especially deprived groups, such as the
> community organisations or service providers that work with them
The third possibility is creating some kind of process that forces
discussion, leading to consensus. And here's where the question of
tools linking large groups becomes particularly interesting. "Smart
mobs," rating systems (e.g., slashdot, digg), and other tools that
channel conversation toward convergence, and then into action.
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Simon Smith wrote:
>
> > My main concern would be over how realistic it is to get those numbers
> > involved in an intensive consensus-building exercise, particularly if they
> > are to be recruited to represent the spectrum of social interests and
> > demographic groups in the population. ...
>
> The third possibility [B-3] is creating some kind of process that forces
> discussion, leading to consensus. And here's where the question of
> tools linking large groups becomes particularly interesting. ...
This is the model I advocate. Provided it is open to the full
electorate (and the consensus itself is unforced), then it's the same
model as Votorola (so I have an interest). It has these advantages:
* fits the theory of consensus formation in society (Habermas)
* will attract more participants, and thus more legitimacy
* enables communities (as opposed to a self-interested government)
to frame the agenda for discourse and consensus
* enables communities to effectively coordinate state power
This last point has implications. Once consensus forms in a
community, it will naturally tap into state power via the electoral
system. Whatever the medium of consensus we develop, if it works for
backing policy, then it will also work for backing legislation and
nominating executives. If we place such a medium at the disposal of a
community, then they will employ it for these purposes: they will
independently express the policy they want pursued, the laws they want
enacted, and the officials they want empowered. Strictly speaking,
that would be a revolution. If party financing and party discipline
were undermined by these changes (as appears likely), then no
parliamentary government could stand against a willful and clearly
expressed consensus. (The executive of a republic could stand in
opposition, but only until the next election.)
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but how does Miles's third possibility *force*
discussion leading to consensus, if there is no formal authority and interest
groups don't choose to compete in the marketplace of ideas? Michael seems to
believe that the community will force the discussion to happen, it will
naturally lead to a consensus, and that will automatically influence state
power. I'd like to see some evidence of that process actually happening in
practice.
Hi Pete,
Did I choose the wrong category for my model? B-3 seemed the most
fit, even though it calls for *forced* discussion, wheras my model
calls for *free* discussion. (I did not think Miles intended that the
discussion must be forced, provided it somehow happens.)
> ... Michael seems to believe that the community will [a] force the
> discussion to happen, it will [b] naturally lead to a consensus,
> and that will [c] automatically influence state power. ...
This is roughly what I believe. Again, 'force' is not needed. And
consensus does not quite emerge 'naturally', because it depends on a
contrived medium/process (the topic of this thread). Not sure which
part you object to... Nobody would object to [a]. We could all cite
instances of spontaneous discussion arising.
It must be [b] or [c] you object to. I covered both of these in my
previous posts. But which do you object to?
Pete Thomson wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but how does Miles's third possibility
*force* discussion leading to consensus, if there is no formal authority and
interest groups don't choose to compete in the marketplace of ideas? Michael
seems to believe that the community will force the discussion to happen, it
will naturally lead to a consensus, and that will automatically influence state
power. I'd like to see some evidence of that process actually happening in
practice.
>
I used the term "forcing function" in the systems engineering sense of a
feedback loop that "forces" convergence (a negative feedback loop if you
will).
This really is the crux of the question at hand: are there ways to
structure dialog, using process and/or tools, so that consensus emerges?
Perhaps a related question is: what is the minimal amount of authority,
or managed competition, or <whatever> needed to create conditions that
lead to consensus? (Answers could include none, or simply that an
adequate framework or context exists.)
Which leads to a spur-of-the-moment observation: trade happens when
there's a marketplace (if you build a town square, a market will
appear). So will soapboxes with people standing on them spouting off.
The printing press, the photocopier, and now the Internet seem to create
conditions where there is lots of spouting off, and some discussion,
some of it even reasoned. Are there a minimal set of additional
conditions and mechanisms that will nudge discussion toward consensus
and then toward action (other than having an institution involved?).
I keep looking toward things like: slashdot, digg, open source software
projects as providing glimpses of an approach.
Things like X-prizes, foundation funding programs - particularly when
some form of peer review is involved - seem to be one kind of forcing
function.
Which leads to another thought (as I work through my first cup of coffee):
What if someone, or group of people set up the following:
- a membership organization (maybe structured as a cooperative)
- members have to put money in a pot - as either a contribution or
investment
- through a group process, the membership proposed, selected, and voted
on issues to address
- through a structured process, approaches are proposed, discussed, voted on
- some number of top-ranked proposals receive funding from the money
- depending on how the awards are structured, members might end up with
stock or other returns from successful projects
What with the nature of the business world these days - lots of joint
ventures, partnerships, mergers, divestitures, and so forth - it's much
of a leap to envision lots of groups like the above, splitting up,
joining together, engaging in joint ventures, etc.
I expect there are analogies vis-a-vis political activity - e.g., a
similar process for creating and supporting initiative campaigns,
candidates, issues campaigns, etc.
Michael, I think it was the word "force" that sparked my comment - I'm not sure
if it's really an objection. Miles has now clarified that he didn't mean quite
what I took it to mean.
Where I'm coming from, basically, is the relatively low level of participation
in almost all online spaces (low compared to, say, voting in elections). It is
about point (a) in Michael's labelling of my points: individuals and interest
groups are not under any pressure to participate. That means that (1) there's
not seen to be an active marketplace that's worth selling into, and (2)
legitimacy is weak so action is unlikely (unless the forum is sponsored by an
institution that's committed to acting on its conclusions).
This may be getting a bit off topic from Steven's original question, which is
more about point (b). But actually I wonder whether one reason for difficulty
in reaching consensus is that the participants don't really believe it matters.
We may heckle the guy spouting off from the soapbox, but the discussion with
him won't change the way we vote.
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:12:02AM +1300, Pete Thomson wrote: > Where I'm coming from, basically, is the relatively low level of > participation in almost all online spaces (low compared to, say, > voting in elections). It is about point (a) in Michael's labelling > of my points: individuals and interest groups are not under any > pressure to participate. That means that (1) there's not seen to be > an active marketplace that's worth selling into, and (2) legitimacy > is weak so action is unlikely (unless the forum is sponsored by an > institution that's committed to acting on its conclusions). Hi Pete, I see your point, now. You're concerned about low participation in the grassroots model (Miles's B-3). If participation levels were too low in this model, then any consensus that formed among participants could *not* be extrapolated to a consensus of the wider electorate (I agree). I'll pose some concrete scenarios (3 altogether), if I may. I believe they'll have a mutual, knock-on effect with respect to participation levels. 1. Open election for Mayor (Toronto, May 2008) The residents of Toronto initiate a continuous, open election for Mayor. They use Votorola for this purpose: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht Assume this is the first open election (of this kind) in any city. Assume also that Votorola works as advertised. In the course of the first 6 months, on its own, this election might attract 10,000 voters. (Definitely not a quorum for a city of 2.5 million.) Reasons for a voter to participate: * Curiosity, she hasn't participated in an 'open election' before * She's perhaps a little radical, and likes the idea of an unauthorized election * She's perhaps a little conservative, and dislikes the idea that left-wingers are over-represented among the voters * She receives notice that somebody voted for her (for me?!) and the idea of role-playing as a delegate appeals to her * She expects a quorum will form before the next Council elections (2010), and wants to have early influence on the issues 2. Open Bylaw for Tax Reform (Toronto, August 2008) A legal secretary, digruntled by a recent property tax hike, obtains a copy of the City's tax code; rewrites it; and places it in the format of a proposed bylaw (Bylaw for Tax Reform). She posts it on her Web site; initiates an open bylaw election; and obtains a dozen initial votes from her friends. Open drafting and voting ensue, much as in this scenario: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#Minnesota-scenario (substitute 'bylaw draft' for 'policy draft') I think this (on its own) would attract the participation of numerous amateur bylaw drafters, and 100,000+ voters. Reasons for participation: * As above, plus: * Almost everybody has something to lose or gain from tax reform, and the *very idea* of losing makes them angry enough to cast a vote Soon (to continue the scenario) participation reaches 5,000, exceeding that of the mayoral election (still proceeding slowly, in parallel). Around the same time, about half of the leading mayoral candidates declare their support for the proposed Bylaw for Tax Reform, and promise to bring it to a Council vote, once elected. Each, however, plunks for a *different* proposed draft, one that allocates a different distribution of taxes. Participation in the mayoral election then jumps to match the higher level of the Bylaw election. Both of them, thus linked by the common issue of tax reform, proceed to climb at a faster rate than either of them alone. Everyone now expects participation to reach the level of an official election. Reason: * Everybody realizes that the Mayor's office and a reallocation of taxes are definitely at stake 3. Open Constitution (Europe, 2010) Europeans begin openly drafting a constitution. They start from the document that was previously rejected, making substantial corrections and amendments. (Scenario of open drafting and voting is similar to 2 above, but on a larger scale.) Participation grows rapidly, and is expected to be high, perhaps 75% of the electorate. Reason: * Europeans are defining for themselves what Europe is, and what it means to be European. Those of them alive at that moment would not wish to be excluded.
Michael Allan > Sent: 07 February 2008 18:28
> 3. Open Constitution (Europe, 2010)
>
> Europeans begin openly drafting a constitution. They start
> from the document that was previously rejected, making
> substantial corrections and amendments. (Scenario of open
> drafting and voting is similar to 2 above, but on a larger
> scale.) Participation grows rapidly, and is expected to be
> high, perhaps 75% of the electorate. Reason:
>
> * Europeans are defining for themselves what Europe is, and what it
> means to be European. Those of them alive at that moment would
> not wish to be excluded.
Participation in this project would be horribly skewed and completely
unrepresentative of the electorate at large. Reason: if a
referendum on UK continued membership of the EU were held now, I would not be
surprised if more than 50% voted to leave the EU. I
would expect more than 50% if "a constitution" were anywhere on the horizon.
Why do you think the promised referendum has
disappeared?
The UK may be the most polarised Member State on this issue, but there is
considerable unhappiness about "the project" in several
other EU countries as well. So I should not expect too much positive
participation in this one - maybe some very negative
participation, and I should expect the "antis" to be the most vociferous. They
would certainly not be contributing toward building
a consensus!
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1263 - Release Date: 06/02/2008
20:14
James Gilmour wrote:
>
> > 3. Open Constitution (Europe, 2010)
> >
> > Europeans begin openly drafting a constitution. ...
> Participation in this project would be horribly skewed and
> completely unrepresentative of the electorate at large. Reason: if
> a referendum on UK continued membership of the EU were held now, I
> would not be surprised if more than 50% voted to leave the EU.
> ... there is considerable unhappiness about "the project" in several
> other EU countries as well. So I should not expect too much
> positive participation in this one - maybe some very negative
> participation, and I should expect the "antis" to be the most
> vociferous. They would certainly not be contributing toward
> building a consensus!
James's concern is not the levels of participation (as Pete's was),
but a failure of participants to acheive a consensus (or legitimate
consensus) owing to a premise or *context* dispute. Those who dispute
the context have no formal channel in which to express their dissent.
Either they exclude themselves from the process, in silence (being
unfair to themselves), or register a spoiler vote in protest (being
unfair to others).
In answering, I hope to show that the process itself contains a
solution. The process we are speaking of is Miles's B-3, which is
based on open, grassroots consensus. The solution lies in the fact
that openness extends beyond participation, to include the framing of
new contexts. To illustrate, allow me to relate two additional
scenarios. These might follow from the previous three. In scenario
4, a solution is found by shifting and narrowing the context; in
scenario 5, by widening it.
4. Open Foreign Policy (United Kingdom, 2012)
An economics student in the UK, being opposed to EU membership,
decides that his opposition is best expressed in the context of UK
foreign policy. He sketches a foreign policy draft that centers on
withdrawal from the EU. He posts the draft on his Web site, and
initiates an open election for it.
At the same time, he withdraws his vote from the open election for the
European Constitution (3). Although he is opposed to membership for
the UK, he does not wish to spoil the election for the other EU
members. If they wish to have a constitution, then that is their
affair.
Other voters begin to follow his example. They withdraw their protest
from the context of Europe (where it was having no effect on UK
policy), and register it more effectively by voting for a foreign
policy that entails EU withdrawal. Others voters disagree with this
proposed policy shift, and vote for alternative drafts that would
maintain EU membership.
Aside from withdrawing their pointless protest votes in the EU's
constitutional election, some dissenters turn around and recast their
votes in *favour* of various constitutional drafts. They choose
drafts, in particular, that would grant the UK a larger degree of
autonomy within the union. In doing this, they are hedging their bets
against the event of continued membership. More important, they are
providing other EU members with concrete proposals to consider;
proposals that are taken seriously in light of the new foreign policy
election in the UK. The effect of the new election is therefore to
neutralize the context dispute that had poisoned the old EU election.
It now proceeds on a more rational footing.
5. Open Constitution (World, 2012)
Meanwhile, a resident of France (call her Marianne) is also thinking
about the election for the European Constitution. She does not agree
with the statement (3) that "Europeans are defining for themselves
what Europe is, and what it means to be European." She doubts that
the EU really respresents Europeans, at large. In the election, she
has voted against the constitution.
Marianne is heir to the universalism of the French Revolution. She
does not feel that the values of Europe can be contained in Europe,
any more than the ideas of the Revolution could be contained in
France. Instead of a European Constitution, she would rather
participate in something that seems more hopeful. So she drafts a
page of HTML, with the title:
Universal Constitution
But what to put underneath? It cannot be left blank. A constitution
ought, she reflects, to have a preamble about shared values. She
thinks about this, and writes, "We believe in democracy..."
The effort to reach a consensus at that scale would have a positive
effect on the EU constitutional dispute. It would put the EU and its
member states in a clearer context. It might also have a positive
effect on other disputes. It might, for example, bring the
globalization protestors off the streets and into rational,
constructive dialogue.
Michael has misunderstood what I wrote - or at least, what I intended. My
first point was that I do not think the level of
participation in this particular exercise would be anything like as high as the
75% Michael originally suggested. The lack of
consensus is a second (but perhaps not secondary) issue.
I would not be at all hopeful that the suggested rational approaches to dealing
with the lack of consensus set out in Michael's last
message would prevail. The divisions on this particular issue run very deep
and produce visceral responses. When the issue is like
this one, in politics, as in love and war, "all is fair".
So I would foresee those most opposed to "the constitution project" pursuing at
least four lines of opposition:
1. register a vote against whatever is proposed.
2. start a counter "petition" to oppose the whole constitution-writing
exercise.
3. submit "wrecking amendments" to every proposal - these can be dressed up to
look quite reasonable but would make the end product
inoperable and so, useless.
4. engage in a vicious "dirty tricks" campaign against the proponents of the
constitution and against the whole project.
They will certainly not exclude themselves in silence, nor will they care at
all about being unfair to those who disagree with their
views. Their objective will be, quite simply, to win - and they will use any
means they think will help them towards that
objective.
James
Michael Allan > Sent: 08 February 2008 12:10
Michael Allan wrote: "Those who dispute the context have no formal channel in which to express their dissent." Isn't this essentially because we're imagining a scenario where an exercise in deliberative democracy is expected to endorsed or rejected in a yes/no referendum? But why should an extended, open eParticipation process culminate in a one-off (e)Voting event? The consensus-building mechanisms being explored in this thread would have to allow for much more nuanced decision-making where dissenters are presented with a constructive outlet. By the way, the EU now hosts a series of discussion forums on the future of Europe on the Your Voice in Europe<http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewforum.php?f=9>site. I'm not sure there's much there yet to refute James Gilmour's pessimistic view. Simon Smith
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 02:27:19PM -0000, James Gilmour wrote:
>
> I would not be at all hopeful that the suggested rational approaches
> to dealing with the lack of consensus set out in Michael's last
> message would prevail. The divisions on this particular issue run
> very deep and produce visceral responses. When the issue is like
> this one, in politics, as in love and war, "all is fair".
To help frame my answer, imagine we can listen in on the community:
*** joining channel #unicon ... synced in 0.071 secs
marc. Ciao Marianne, I like your idea of a Universal Constitution.
I've cast my vote for you!
mari. Thanks Marcello!
marc. I have to say, though, I think your own vote in the EU election
is *irrational*. Pardon me, but you see, you've voted for the
null draft of the Constitution (in other words against the
entire process of agreement). Logically, that means you want
all EU administrative institutions to be dismantled, and all
formal cooperation among European states to end.
mari. Oh dear, that's not what I intended! I would agree to keeping
agreements on cross-border issues, and common institutions
to administer them. What I'm opposed to is the added layer
of *government*.
marc. I thought so Marianne, that's why I wanted to speak with you.
You see, there's a group of us here in Napoli, and we're
working on a draft of the constitution that would reduce the EU
to its essential administrative and economic functions.
I'd like to send you an email, outlining our proposal.
mari. Yes please. I think I could vote for a proposal like that.
marc. We could use your vote, Marianne, it carries a lot of weight.
Even though you're only voting for the null draft, you have
many backers. No surprise there. You've become popular with
the voters.
mari. Oh, those are only my neighbours here in the village. They
vote for me in *all* the elections. And I hardly know how
to cast my own vote! It's a good thing my village has not
so many people... But I'll forward your email to them,
so they know I'm thinking of shifting my vote to your proposal.
marc. No need Marianne, I can see their addresses here. I'll CC them.
I'm sending it now...
mari. Thanks Marcello!
marc. My pleasure, and good luck in your work on the Constitution.
Ciao Marianne.
mari. Ciao Marcello.
*** quitting channel #unicon
*** joining channel #albion ... synced in 0.043 secs
chri. So which draft of the EU constitution are you voting for, Nick?
Or do you have your own draft, like me?
nick You're kidding me, Christabel. I'm voting against the whole
thing. Brussels can stuff it.
chri. Are you out of your tree? Brussels is opposed to it. If we
don't reach *some* kind of agreement, then we're stuck
with whatever the Eurocrats give us. Nick, you're voting
for the status quo!
...
chri. Look Nicky, you know me, we see eye-to-eye. Why not vote
for me on this one?
nick Hmmm...
chri. You see, I've gathered quite a few votes for my draft. It's no
big deal, I've only made a few changes here and there. But
they listen to me. The drafter I'm voting for (she has a lot
of votes) she's using my changes! And so on, up the line.
It's kind of fun.
> So I would foresee those most opposed to "the constitution project"
> pursuing at least four lines of opposition:
>
> 1. register a vote against whatever is proposed.
Yes, and that would be irrational, because no single proposal is on
the table; rather people are free to make their own proposals, or
choose from the full range of those previously proposed. However,
over time (as suggested in the IRC chats above), the community would
correct its own irrational voting.
> 2. start a counter "petition" to oppose the whole constitution-
> writing exercise.
This is rational (if I understand), provided it is carried out in an
appropriate context. Scenario 4 (my previous post) is an example of
this kind of context shifting.
> 3. submit "wrecking amendments" to every proposal - these can be
> dressed up to look quite reasonable but would make the end product
> inoperable and so, useless.
That would not be possible in the particular process that I propose.
There is no way to filibuster the community, and wreck the consensus
of others. Amendments that are unpopular, or unreasonable, would
simply be ignored. (If Christabel's amendments did not make sense,
then the higher drafter would not have adopted them. She would have
spoken to Christabel, and explained the problem to her.)
> 4. engage in a vicious "dirty tricks" campaign against the proponents
> of the constitution and against the whole project.
Using external channels, like mass media and so on? I imagine that
would occur. It's to be expected. People often disagree. It's
politics as usual. But it could not, in itself, prevent consensus
from forming in an open, grassroots process.
There is no guarantee, however, that the process will culminate in a
single, majority consensus. If a majority is impossible owing to real
social divisions, then the process will culminate in the exposure of
those divisions. They will be exposed in concrete terms, fully
qualified and quantified. That would be a good thing, I think.
Simon Smith wrote:
> Michael Allan wrote: "Those who dispute the context have no formal channel
> in which to express their dissent."
> Isn't this essentially because we're imagining a scenario where an exercise
> in deliberative democracy is expected to endorsed or rejected in a yes/no
> referendum?
I think you are right, a yes/no referendum is problematic, a poor
process for building consensus. And when a community responds
irrationally to it, it might not be the fault of the community, but
rather the only possible response one could expect from a
fundamentally irrational process, one that was imposed on the
community from outside. (Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.)
One can see the irrationality of posing a yes/no question to a
community. It presumes that the community can answer yes/no questions
in the way that a single individual could.
Sorry, what exactly are you asking me?
Oh yes, now I understand you. But what's the point of that
question, I don't even agree with the premises. Please go away,
and stop troubling me...
A referendum gives the individuals of the community no such
opportunity to engage the questioner in a natural, human way. The
questioner is not even human. It is an administrative machine that
can only talk via mass media, and can only listen via mass electoral
systems. A referendum process is hardly conducive, therefore, to
rational discourse. And without rational discourse, there can be no
consensus.
> But why should an extended, open eParticipation process
> culminate in a one-off (e)Voting event? The consensus-building mechanisms
> being explored in this thread would have to allow for much more nuanced
> decision-making where dissenters are presented with a constructive outlet.
The process proposed, however, does not end in a 'one-off (e)Voting
event'. It is a continuous process of rational discourse that builds
consensus, and then maintains and adapts it. A constitution might
have to be ratified eventually (a one-off event outside of the
consensus process), but the consensus process would not end there. It
would keep right on going, because a constitution must be maintained
for as long as it is in force.
Hi, Thanks all for this very valuable thread. A few days ago, I did a little cross-pollinating and extended the conversation to two neighboring communities (I know some of you are on these mailing lists already): http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/onlinefacilitation/ The onlinefacilitation listserv is for discussion about the skills, techniques and issues around online facilitation in a variety of Internet online environments and virtual communities. http://www.thataway.org/?page_id=857 http://lists.thataway.org/SCRIPTS/WA-THATAWAY.EXE?A0=NCDD-DISCUSSION (Archive) This is the main listserv/discussion group for the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation. All NCDD members are strongly encouraged to subscribe to and participate in this discussion. Used by those who do D&D work for networking, info-sharing, and discussing D&D-related issues. There have already been a few interesting replies on both lists. Check it out!
I hope people do not mind me reigniting this debate again, but I could not help myself! I have done much research on the process of Consensus, and I see the following link to be near to an authority as one can get on the subject: http://www.ic.org/pnp/ocac/ There are a few concerns I have with the favoured models in this thread. If I may be bold as to say the following. 1. Voting. There have been a number of suggestions about using voting systems to legitimate a consensus policy. Although this sounds fair and democratic at its face, may I remind you that the existing models of consensus in fact does not use voting as a process for achieving consensus. This is a very important point. Voting for and against proposals have the effect of pitting majority against minority, introducing competition, and reducing cooperation - a key stone of consensus building. Majority vs Minority voting also dilutes the power of the individual to speak out and make a difference, as the status-quo is perceived to have power over all marginal objections. The very idea of consensus is compromised by this. So how can we legitimate a consensus policy? We don't need to, because a consensus is consensus. If governments object to a consensus policy, then they have the right, indeed the responsibility to make objections to it. Those objections will be upheld, and modifications to the policy will be made, therefore achieving consensus. I believe the power of objections can replace the need for voting. 2. Participation and the power of the Individual. In consensus decision making, instead of voting, any individual with objections to a proposal has the power, to block a proposal outright. This power keeps the consensus building process in check, by making sure that all objections are dealt with. There are also cases in which an individual might choose to stand aside, after their objection is found to be unresolvable, in order that the proposals can go ahead, with the reservation noted. Such an arrangement might be called "Consensus minus one", and some groups formalise the position of 'devil's advocate' in the consensus building process, to encourage constant scrutiny over policies. The power that is given to the individual is very important, especially in the context of the internet. People will only participate in 'e-consensus' if they think they will be heard, and their contribution results in change. I believe the best approach is one taken by Wikipedia, where person A creates a topic, then on seeing the original draft, person B is horrified, and makes changes as she sees fit. Person C comes along to correct spelling errors and improve the formating, Person D fills in the citations. etc etc. Such an approach sets no limit on the level of participation an individual can take, while at the same time errors and biases are detected and corrected. 3. Abuse. There may be some who are concerned at the possibility of abuse in such an open system. I much prefer the prospect of having the the power to deal with abuse as they happen, rather than creating restrictions to prevent them, which will inevitably limit the scope for creativity. I would welcome any feedback on these thoughts, as I am taking this very seriously, and intending to have a beta version of a consensus building system by the end of the year. My Project, I am at the moment embarking on a solo project to come up with a system of consensus building online. If anyone could point me in a better direction where a group is working on such a project, please let me know. Kind Regards, Tom Kaneko
tom.kaneko wrote:
> 2. ... instead of voting, any individual with objections to a
> proposal has the power, to block a proposal outright. This power
> keeps the consensus building process in check, by making sure that
> all objections are dealt with. ...
Hi Tom,
I have some questions about the process. Suppose it involves 10
participants, for example. Suppose they reach a point where 3 agree,
after some discussion, to a proposal that was put forward (P). The
remaining 7 do not agree to P -- not yet, anyway -- but discussion
continues. Do I have the right picture, so far?
tom.kaneko wrote:
> I think I have the picture, is there a further specific question?
Your process, then, allows for this situation:
* 3 agree to proposal P
* 7 do not agree, or are undecided
Suppose that one of the 7 is thinking about P, and gets an idea. She
discusses her idea with the others. Soon it emerges that the idea
amounts to an alternative proposal (Q), which is very different from
P. It also emerges that 4 of the participants agree to it. The
situation is now this:
* 3 agree to P
* 4 agree to Q
* 3 agree to neither
Does the process allow for this situation? Is Q formalized as a
proposal, just as P is? Is agreement to Q formalized, just as for P?
If so, how? How does the process formalize each proposal, and the
agreement that accrues to each?
I am following a different approach toward online consensus with the
CivicEvolution platform. My design direction and choices are best
captured by the concept of meta consensus and its treatment by John
Dryzek in Deliberative Democracy and Beyond
Here are 4 key points for me:
#1 Decision should be rendered on the basis of reasons that are capable
of reflective acceptance by participants
#2 participants should be amenable to reflecting upon and changing their
preferences and views.
#3 Such decisions can achieve a workable meta-consensus
#4 that meta-consensus can be translated into administrative power.
Dr. Janette Hartz-Karp and I are exploring these possibilities with the
view that workable meta-consensus is not simply arriving at the right
answer, or the best answer—it is the result of a process that provides
voice and efficacious, reciprocal engagement to all participants as it
generates common ground, authenticity, trust, and eventual buy-in. This
gives stakeholders a voice, capturing the wisdom of those affected,
encouraging consensus and buy-in—critical to creative and effective
solutions.
Consensus seems to me in our discussions to imply an agreement on the
particulars, whereas consent implies to me a willingness to go along
with a group decisions, or at least not actively oppose it. This
consent can be for a variety of reasons and I think that makes meta
consensus more achievable.
And it dawns on me just now that we might even conflate two discussions:
1) How do we gather input from one million people, and 2) How do we
build consensus online. Consensus of 10 is very rare, while
meta-consensus of far bigger groups is common. As I was discussing this
with someone last week, I realized more fully what this implies to me.
I have made design choices with CivicEvolution to empower teams to try
to find common ground, but also to empower teams to develop proposals
that can impact communities in their real world functioning and try to
implement these proposals as pilot programs. Instead of convening 1000s
to try to get the right answer, we can empower teams to convene like
minds and others to brainstorm solutions and move them forward on a
small scale at first.
We can move our communities forward in small increments powered by the
creativity and passion of small teams working toward shared goals in the
community. As these teams make proposals and progress and pilot studies
and pilot implementations we can learn what might work and what the
community will support.
An added benefit is the cultural change that occurs in an online group
when its members are dedicated to developing actual solutions instead of
winning arguments. I believe this cultural change will extend between
groups that are addressing similar issues in communities.
In this scenario, legitimacy is derived from real world impacts and
community support, not mathematical models of statistical participation
online.
Hello Tom
I very much agree that there needs to be multiple, overlapping scales of
participation. I just finished Clay Shirky's "Here Comes Everybody", in
which he talks about the power law distribution of online activity. A
very few people produce most of the content and the majority of the
people produce very little content. However, all participants are
essential to the healthy functioning of the community - wikipedia,
flickr, whatever it is.
In the context of policy development and analysis, I too assume the
power law will describe participation. Most people in the effected
community will not have the interest, time or desire to commit to a long
process. As wikipedia illustrates, you only need a core of dedicated
people to actually produce an article, or a proposal. It is crucial
however, that the process is transparent and that anyone can enter the
process. Note that enter the process doesn't mean crashing and
disrupting an existing team. Depending on the circumstances new members
might join existing teams or they might form allied teams or even
competing teams.
I envision multiple layers or scales of participation which I will
describe from the most involved to the least involved:
1) Proposal development team: participants make a commitment to a
multi-step process involving dialogues on the idea, goals, an action
plan, impacts, and how to move the plan forward. This team develops a
set of key points for each step through dialogue and deliberation. This
team can be completely private, semi private such that the key points of
its proposal are made public during the process, or public such that
anyone can read the dialogue, but they cannot disrupt it.
2) Proposal review team: participants commit to a single dialogue to
explore the proposal generated by another team, deliberate it, and issue
a review in the form of a set of key points. Another example at this
level might be a dialogue to develop some common ground in the community
and publisj a set of principles about the issue.
3) Proposal review dialogue: participants can discuss and deliberate a
proposal, add feedback, rate it, sign a petition in support. This
dialogue would be open to anyone, it will reflect a more typical forum
than a small discussion group. This dialogue could be run simultaneous
with the proposal development process in team #1 and provide valuable
feedback to the proposal development team.
Another aspect of this architecture has to do with the scaling that was
mentioned in an earlier post. The teams in #1 and #2 could form the
base of a pyramid in which the upper levels exist to collect and
synthesize the ideas of an array of lower teams addressing the same
issue. This hints at the possibilities for scaling this approach beyond
the local community.
We must learn to walk before we run. Before we worry about scaling up to
address national and global problems, our communities need to learn how
to engage in deliberative stakeholder governance. Successfully solving
local problems through dialogue and deliberation is an essential step.
Re: power to the individual, People will only participate if they
themselves had the power to affect the proposal strongly. I think that
voting in elections and wikipedia are two strong arguments against this
statement. In wikipedia, the typical active participant makes a few
very minor changes to an article, but they know they have helped improve
it.
The impact of participation correlates to the quality and quantity of
participation. And I believe most people can accept that, at least on
reflection. Two quick anecdotes:
1. Sending an email to your representative, the white house or the EPA
carries virtually no significance. The recipient knows it didn't take
any commitment to create and treats it accordingly - as they should be
treated.
2. An acquaintance once lamented that he wanted a site where he could
register all of his "values" on all of the issues and they should be
paid attention to by the decisions makers. I remarked that this was a
recipe for disaster because I didn't want decision makers listening to a
bunch of uninformed opinion, mine or anyone elses.
Finally, the essential problem with wikipedia is that it is not
transparently deliberative. They are striving toward fact, and the
underlying process is only important if the answer doesn't look right.
Administrative policy decisions on the other hand, always involve more
than fact, they also involve values and messy humans and as such there
is never a perfect fact to be reached. The process and the opportunity
to participate are as important as the resulting policy proposals.
Speaking of a small minority generating the most content (as well as often
being the loudest voices online), what online techniques do folks recommend to
broaden the legitimacy/influence of the exchange on
decision-makers/journalists? What kind of "digg" are a large percentage of
users actually willing to do to bring often silent support to the surface? Any
demonstrations or research?
With Issues Forums, we often have 10-20% of registered participants posting
each month. This is apparently 3x+ more participation as a percent than you
find on typical user-generated content systems (search Google for
"participation inequality jakob"). However, despite this higher rate of
participation, comments we receive (often from elites in the community) focus
on the notion that only a few people dominate the discussion. While we have
numbers to dispute this, this is still the pereception we face.
And we do have some "usual suspects," so other than having things like "new
member" weeks to ease in more contributors, something else is needed to more
firmly establish the legitimacy of the forum that measures support or a least
recommendations on the best submissions. I am just skeptical that more than 1%
of members would actually rate, vote for, or recommend posts.
Has anyone cracked the more casual participation nut in smaller scale online
exchanges? Is there anything that can be transferred from e-learning or even
corporate working groups online?
Steven Clift
tom.kaneko wrote:
> We have different premises when it comes to building consensus...
> So in your scenario, applying [my process] logic goes along
> these lines:
> * 3 agree to P
> * 7 individuals will make their objections known, but avoiding
> repetition.
> * a new draft, Q, is drawn up after discussion and compromise, and the
> old draft P is thrown out for the time being.
> * 3 individuals make their objections to Q known, and the proposal is
> refined again until consensus is achieved, or something as close to it
> as possible.
So I take it Tom, this situation cannot occur in your process (not
formally, anyway):
* 3 agree to P
* 4 agree to Q
* 3 agree to neither proposal, or are undecided
Instead, the alternative proposal (Q) is handled in this way:
* 3 agree to P
* 7 do not agree, or are undecided (4 of them actually agree to Q,
but their agreement is not formally acknowledged)
Then Q is formally acknowledged, and P is rejected:
* 4 agree to Q
* 6 do not agree, or are undecided (3 of them actually agree to P,
but their agreement is not formally acknowledged)
> I guess this is a more linear process to the one you are describing.
> Note how proposal P is rejected as soon as Q is drafted, which keeps
> the group's focus on the one proposal.
Yes, I see your intent. But what causes them to focus on Q, and to
reject P? What does Q have, that P lacks? If only 2 participants had
agreed to Q, for example, would it still become the new focus?
Your process seems to depend on *quantity* of agreement. It allows
one proposal (P) to be rejected and replaced by a very different one
(Q) soley on the basis of which has the *most* agreement. So my
original questions still apply: How does the process formalize each
proposal, and the agreement to each? You say that a "new draft, Q, is
drawn up". So maybe each proposal is a separate draft text? But how
is the quantity of agreement formalized, for each draft?
How is the rejection of alternative proposals formalized? You say
that the "old draft P is thrown out for the time being". Where does
it go, exactly? Is the quantity of agreement it had aquired (3
participants) still formally acknowledged? Or is that, too, thrown
out?
Michael Allan wrote:
> Your process seems to depend on *quantity* of agreement. It allows
> one proposal (P) to be rejected and replaced by a very different one
> (Q) soley on the basis of which has the *most* agreement. So my
> original questions still apply: How does the process formalize each
> proposal, and the agreement to each?
Yes, I should have addressed this question directly. I will now be
describing the consensus process I envision working on the internet,
and steer away from the 'Formal Consensus' process used in real life
meetings. The truth is that my model does not formalise any proposal
at all. In fact this process is never ending, and goes through
endless cycles of refinement. This may mean that the focus proposal
could ping pong between P and Q until someone comes up with a creative
solution, or the objectors agree to disagree. This also allows for
the proposals to evolve as circumstances in the real world change.
Users will never be faced with a page saying "this issue is closed".
Further, the level of agreement is not formalised either, but only the
level of disagreement, because only objections are noted along with
the proposal, not the level of agreement. I concede that in many
cases, even good proposals will have several objections, but I find
this desirable because it dissolves the myth of absolute rights/
authority of decisions.
And how can people act on unformalised decisions, you ask? They can,
and they do, I have seen it happen effectively. I would look into the
weird 'war' of Scientology vs Anonymous. Anonymous is a bizarre
anarchic organisation in which the 9000 or so self-declared members do
not know each other's identity, are decentralised, have no hierarchy,
but make decisions and act on them promptly and responsibly. It is an
interesting case for the consensus process I am developing, and indeed
one from which I derive my rosy assumptions about the potential for
responsibility and morality on the internet.
Michael:
> Yes, I see your intent. But what causes them to focus on Q, and to
> reject P? What does Q have, that P lacks? If only 2 participants had
> agreed to Q, for example, would it still become the new focus?
Q will become the new focus even if only 2 participants agree, just
because it has been suggested, but the level of disagreement for Q
will soon result in the proposal being reverted back to a proposal
that resembles P. All versions of proposals will be archived, and be
ready to call up if and when they are desired.
The intention is to get as many people as possible to read through the
proposals, and amend them as they see fit, which through leaps and
bounds should lead to the most agreeable position. The only evidence
which alludes to the support of the proposals are the number of page
views and the number of edits.
Of course, throughout this process, discussion would be essential in
resolving disagreements, but will not be used as a tool to gather
support and agreement.
Throughout this process I have focused on the disagreement side of
decision making, because I see the consensus process as one that
resolves disagreement and conflict, as opposed to one that endorses a
popular proposal. Agreement is assumed in the absence of disagreement.
The reason why I have steered away from formalising proposals, is
because i want the process to resemble the consensus processes that we
use in everyday life. The pattern tends to be proposal ("let's do
this!") - disagreement ("No, because...") - amended proposal ("so how
about we...") - disagreement ("yes, but...") or agreement ("ok"). I
think users will find this approach more familiar and natural.
I think the best way to understand this process is to see it. I'll
try to get a draft model of this process online by the end of this
month, at which point I will let you all know.
Kind regards,
Tom Kaneko
tom.kaneko wrote:
> I think the best way to understand this process is to see it. I'll
> try to get a draft model of this process online by the end of this
> month, at which point I will let you all know.
Ditto. I must get back to work, too. We'll compare notes again later.
Meantime, we must catch up with Brian. His CivicEvolution is already
up and running. But it has one flaw. Whereas your "formal consensus"
formalizes disagreement, and my "delegate cascade" formalizes
agreement, his "meta-consensus" formalizes neither! Let's hurry and
catch up with him, before he sees his mistake...