|Subject: Re: [Ows_solutions] Fw: [NYCGA Internet] Ideas for user-generated content on website|
|From: fragro |
|Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:33:02 -0500|
I don't think that's accurate - I registered with a sarapisfoundation.org email.
That being said - I'm excited to learn more about openassembly.org :)
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:26 PM, fragro <email@example.com> wrote:The only issue with plainsite.org is that you need a University or Institutional email adress, which will exclude a great number of our user.However it's a great idea. I hope to integrate the ability to tag law directly into Open Assembly soon.
Frank Grove--On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Devin Balkind <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Robert - have you seen plainsite.org?On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Rabbitrock Charlotte <email@example.com> wrote:
Hi Greg.I saw this on the OWS list serve.Earlier I had proposed a system to vote on the language used in pending bills in congress. In my opinion voting on pre-proposal / bill-ideas is not getting the job done - thus, I think we should be using wisdom of the crowds on exact bill language.Not sure my proposal has had much traction.Could be perceived complexity; or the nature of being a bit out of context to the necessary boots-on-the-ground issues that surround OWS tech.Not sure your thoughts, but thought I'd ping you directly (Greg)Personally I find it a bit ironic that pending law, down to the sentence level is not being polled. Seems everyone's dancing round what should be proposed (into law), meanwhile law language people disagree with is being written every day with effectively no force being applied during the critical pending - till - vote time-window.All my best.rr>Robert ReddickMount Holly, NC704-301-1239 cellOn Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:49 AM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
This is a job for the open source team, cc'd.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerryFrom: Gregory Orr <email@example.com>Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:03:27 -0400Subject: [NYCGA Internet] Ideas for user-generated content on websiteHello,
I would like to join this working group, and I plan to attend the working group session tomorrow afternoon. I have a couple ideas (the first leading into the second) about how to use the internet to develop government policy/program proposals.
Idea #1: Twitter-style policy/program proposals are published and rated by the audience (at least thumbs up / thumbs down). Could look like http://www.quirky.com/participate, with additional information and comments about each idea available with a clickthrough.
Idea #2: Develop and organize policies/programs through a wiki. We'd want to propel nuanced schools of thought about each issue, so it wouldn't be like wikipedia where there's just one page for each topic - we'd allow discrete policy/program versions as requested by contributors/managers. Each policy/program would have a self-selected community around it, and there could be the current proposal, implementation plans, public comments / discussion board, proposed edits, etc. To help the cream rise to the top, we could evaluate with: (1) crowdsourced ratings, (2) standardized analysis like cost-benefit, (3) recommendations of review board. The website should be designed to be optimal for contributors (e.g., collaborative technology, rights management, etc.) and visitors (e.g., organized and subcategorized and ranked so that all the good stuff is easy to find).
These ideas could be important steps toward direct democracy and away from special interests and two-party politics. What do you think?Sincerely,
Ows_solutions mailing list
Libertas et Patria
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|