On 13 Nov 2011, at 10:53 AM, Matthew Lepacek wrote:
We can't seek to change anything about the GA as it is today in our process, we can only compliment it 1:1 for what it is today, and ensure it is adaptable as the GA evolves process over time.
I would apply the 1:1 to the principles of the GA, not the specific techniques, since they are technology dependent.
The main complaints about GAs are that they are too slow to make decisions and are often are controlled by a small group. New technology can help overcome these criticisms. We have social science results and these should be used whenever possible to increase the horizontality of the process.
The idea of multiple choice voting options has evolved now into how we can handle ad-hoc dynamic temperature checks which can happen at any given moment.
This presents info to a coordination/moderation team, who hopefully makes fair decisions. Here is an example of how the GA can directly manage the process:
In Boulder they are working on using Twitter as a back channel for
evaluating the current speaker - over VoIP. This was my suggestion, but
without the reputation element:
A primitive version of ConsensusVoIP (CV) would support the following
Support2-Addition or correction offered
Support1-Additional information needed
Oppose3-Do not understand
Oppose2-Not sincere, Joke, etc.
Oppose0-Waste of time
As a speaker finishes, the total of "Support" vs. "Oppose" tweets is
computed. If there are more Oppose tweets, then the highest priority
oppose, Oppose3, is selected for processing (Oppose0 is not a block and
therefore not a request to speak?). Of those who have tweeted Oppose3, a
person is randomly selected as the next speaker. CV would then speak the
name and priority/objective. For example, Bob-Oppose1 yields "Bob sees an
error" as an introduction from CV.
It will probably be necessary to use a server for the VoIP, so the back
channel could go back to it. This could be a lot more secure then tweeting.
Another approach would be switch modes once Support tweets reached
2/3rds. Then Oppose inputs would be given the highest priority to see if
all blocks could be eliminated.
I describe how effective time management could be added to this type of protocol:
Stodolsky, D. (1984, December). Self-management of criticism in dialog:
Dynamic regulation through automatic mediation. Paper presented at the
symposium Communicating and Contracts between people in the Computerized
Society, Gothenburg University, Sweden.
This model issues invitations to respond based upon peoples' reputations.
Extended abstract (5 min. read):
Stodolsky, D. S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific
communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7, 127-137.
Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals based
upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4).
David Stodolsky, PhD Institute for Social Informatics
Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark