Check out http://groundcrew.us
On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Send developers-public mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of developers-public digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: A snowy thought (Steven Clift) > 2. Re: 2015 Election Quiz thoughts (Tim Green) > 3. Re: Revolutionary transparency (Tom Kaneko) > 4. Re: Revolutionary transparency (Paul Robinson) > 5. Re: 2015 Election Quiz thoughts (Owen Blacker) > > From: Steven Clift <[email protected]> > Date: December 8, 2010 11:56:52 AM EST > To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] A snowy thought > Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > > > Coming from the land of "snow emergencies" we once had well over 2 > feet of snow in one mega storm, discussions online about how the major > cities compared in dealing with this snow was quite interesting. It > went something like: > > 1. The liberal (left) approach: Remove the snow by hand as a job > creation program. > 2. The conservative approach: Require people to remove it themselves. > 3. The libertarian approach: Encourage global warming as a market > driven approach. > > Steve > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Tom Steinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I just saw this headline (which it amazes me a politician should have >> to say, really) >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11946901 >> >> It suddenly made me wonder if there might be some value in a minmalist >> install of Ushahidi ( www.ushahidi.com) under a domain name like >> "LetsClearIt.com". >> >> It could be very simple - people could just stick a pin in the map >> with a statement like "I'll go out here at 6pm today and do some >> shovelling - will anyone help?", get a URL for the problem they've >> reported, and then they could email or tweet or facebook or whatever. >> >> Just a thought in case anyone is bored. I'm sure Adam or Sam would >> lend access to Haggis (our somewhat shonky friends and family server) >> if anyone wanted a go... >> >> Tom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > > > From: Tim Green <[email protected]> > Date: December 8, 2010 11:57:31 AM EST > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] 2015 Election Quiz thoughts > Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > > > Maybe ask people to rank a bunch of more abstract sentences, such as "We > should always give someone another chance" or "We can't help everyone". I'm > finding it hard to think of balanced examples, but it might get to the core > of the emotional motivation that candidates have, rather than concentrating > on policy. > > As for pledges, I think people are going to always expect some level of > commitment from candidates, and those that don't are open to attack from > candidates who are. I had a site idea that I never developed very far - to > collate together all promises (leaflet promises, petitions, pledges, videos > of candidates) made by candidates (parties are easier to find out about, I > know the guardian has a subsite following manifesto commitments) and > categorise them, provide different views on the data, etc., which in > retrorespect would have been productive as a reference linking point for > campaigns involving the libdem tuition fees U-turn etc. > > -t > > On 08/12/10 16:33, Leigh Caldwell wrote: >> >> You might find that rankings could work. >> >> "Please rank the following issues in order of importance: crime, health, >> education, the economy, ..." >> >> You could possibly have two or more separate questions: for instance one on >> the urgency of legislation (or repealing legislation) in that area, and >> another on the priorities for public spending. >> >> It's hard to give a weasel answer to this kind of question, though of course >> they could still refuse to answer at all. However the incentives not to >> answer are lower than with a pledge, because there is no specific promise to >> hold them to. But it still lets you distinguish between the candidates you'd >> rather vote for. >> >> Then again, it also wouldn't be much of a constraint on their actual voting >> behaviour in Parliament. But that's inevitable - there is a direct conflict >> between answering questions that constrain your behaviour, versus the desire >> not to have your behaviour constrained. >> >> Leigh. >> >> On 8 December 2010 16:20, Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 08/12/2010 16:15, 'Dragon' Dave McKee wrote: >> Numerical questions could be quite interesting: >> >> * How much should a student pay for an undergraduate degree? >> >> Obviously this question is fundamentally flawed (3 or 4 year? Science >> or Arts? Who's paying tuition?) but it means that wishy-washy answers >> simply won't work. >> >> No-one can, or will, answer that in numeric terms, because - for the reasons >> you give - it's unanswerable in that form. Instead, you'll just get a load >> of identikit answers along the lines of "They should pay as much as is fair". >> >> Mark >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >> >> >> >> -- >> Leigh Caldwell (t) +44 20 7064 6556 (m) +44 7747 062906 >> Chief executive, Inon http://www.inon.com/ >> Blog: http://www.knowingandmaking.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > > From: Tom Kaneko <[email protected]> > Date: December 8, 2010 11:50:28 AM EST > To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Revolutionary transparency > Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > > > Greetings from a transparency fan, > I found the post very interesting. I got over excited myself about Wikileaks > and posted my own blog post (which I do rarely) on what true transparency > means for the practice of government. I really think transparent government > leads to usefully engaged citizens. > > Mostly conjecture, but it feels right: > http://tomkaneko.com/blog/2010/dec/wikileaks-and-new-authority > > Tom K > > On 7 Dec 2010, at 14:26, Seb Bacon wrote: > >> Hello transparency fans, >> >> This is a fascinating account of Assange's vision of Wikileaks as a >> revolutionary tactic for disrupting power networks: >> >> http://bit.ly/fQPdXe >> >> Anyone else as uninformed as me will probably enjoy reading it... >> though I gather it's all quite well-known stuff if you've been >> following from the start :) >> >> I'm not sure it holds water myself, but then I'm not a revolutionary. >> Plus, although it's very eloquent, the metaphors lose me. The >> authoritarian system is an undirected graph in that it includes actors >> and relationships, it's the internet in that it routes around >> problems, it's a cognitive network in that you can impair the >> functioning of the entire system by... err... making your neurons >> mistrust each other...? >> >> Seb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > > From: Paul Robinson <[email protected]> > Date: December 8, 2010 12:28:25 PM EST > To: [email protected], "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Revolutionary transparency > Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > > > On 7 Dec 2010, at 14:26, Seb Bacon wrote: > >> I'm not sure it holds water myself, but then I'm not a revolutionary. >> Plus, although it's very eloquent, the metaphors lose me. The >> authoritarian system is an undirected graph in that it includes actors >> and relationships, it's the internet in that it routes around >> problems, it's a cognitive network in that you can impair the >> functioning of the entire system by... err... making your neurons >> mistrust each other...? > > > This (referenced in the post you linked to) is in fact a better starting > place: > > http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf > > I've been torn on this. I've held security clearances and handled classified > material. I recall one of the reasons material can be classified as "SECRET" > is that somebody *might* die if revealed ("TOP SECRET" ups this definition to > somebody *will* die). It's not the only reason something can be classified at > that level (others include national embarassment, strained diplomatic > relationships, etc.), but it's one of them. > > As I read the leaks, I can't help but think right now various "diplomats" in > Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Palestine are thinking how much they want to > kick the crap out of each other. I suspect North Korea is about to go mental. > I'm pretty sure somebody will end up dead indirectly as a result of all this. > 50/1 it's more than a thousand people. > > But I can't disagree with the premise its release is based on - that if the > King of Saudi Arabia has a problem with Iran, rather than protecting his > power base in the Middle East by bullshitting about it, he should just simply > say so. If China has a problem with North Korea acting brattish, stop bigging > them up to their face and behind their backs tell the Americans how much > you're really fed up with them: nobody wins that way. > > Assange's stance is that more open and just societies are built on fewer > secrets held by those who govern those societies. He believes that by helping > people leak information, those who govern are weakened into a position of > HAVING to be more open and transparent. > > It is frankly, an extreme and revolutionary outlook. If a society goes > through such a transition, the resistance from existing power bases will be > extreme. That transition might look like - and perhaps be - a civil war. > > Thing is: he's actually doing it. He's not just saying "wouldn't this be > nice", he's actually got a few gigabytes of classified material and is > drip-feeding it out. > > That guy has got some balls. > > Already his character is being smeared and the leaks are being described as > "diplomatic tittle-tattle" when in fact he's just breaking hundreds of years > of diplomatic process to pieces, day by day. If this keeps on going for > another few months, something will break. He's hoping it's an > industrial-military complex or three. I suspect it might not get that far > (unless he has something else up his sleeve). > > But the smears will continue. There is a book out next year from a former > Wikileaks staffer that is being touted as an exposé on what a horrible man > Assange really is, how much of an egomaniac he is, and how flawed Wikileaks > is as a model in terms of its internal structure. > > I don't think I care about that. I think I'm liking the fact that people are > getting a taste of what the World might feel like with more transparency. > With my "open data" hat on, I'm definitely all for that, and I'm not really > concerned about the individual actors at this point. > > It's going to be interesting to watch, anyway... > > > > > From: Owen Blacker <[email protected]> > Date: December 8, 2010 12:40:02 PM EST > To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] 2015 Election Quiz thoughts > Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > > > I very much like Tim's comments here. Worth us thinking about them some (and > possibly looking at some of the questions on sites like Political Compass for > inspiration?) > > On 8 December 2010 16:57, Tim Green <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe ask people to rank a bunch of more abstract sentences, such as "We > should always give someone another chance" or "We can't help everyone". I'm > finding it hard to think of balanced examples, but it might get to the core > of the emotional motivation that candidates have, rather than concentrating > on policy. > > As for pledges, I think people are going to always expect some level of > commitment from candidates, and those that don't are open to attack from > candidates who are. I had a site idea that I never developed very far - to > collate together all promises (leaflet promises, petitions, pledges, videos > of candidates) made by candidates (parties are easier to find out about, I > know the guardian has a subsite following manifesto commitments) and > categorise them, provide different views on the data, etc., which in > retrorespect would have been productive as a reference linking point for > campaigns involving the libdem tuition fees U-turn etc. > > -t > > > On 08/12/10 16:33, Leigh Caldwell wrote: >> >> You might find that rankings could work. >> >> "Please rank the following issues in order of importance: crime, health, >> education, the economy, ..." >> >> You could possibly have two or more separate questions: for instance one on >> the urgency of legislation (or repealing legislation) in that area, and >> another on the priorities for public spending. >> >> It's hard to give a weasel answer to this kind of question, though of course >> they could still refuse to answer at all. However the incentives not to >> answer are lower than with a pledge, because there is no specific promise to >> hold them to. But it still lets you distinguish between the candidates you'd >> rather vote for. >> >> Then again, it also wouldn't be much of a constraint on their actual voting >> behaviour in Parliament. But that's inevitable - there is a direct conflict >> between answering questions that constrain your behaviour, versus the desire >> not to have your behaviour constrained. >> >> Leigh. >> >> On 8 December 2010 16:20, Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 08/12/2010 16:15, 'Dragon' Dave McKee wrote: >> Numerical questions could be quite interesting: >> >> * How much should a student pay for an undergraduate degree? >> >> Obviously this question is fundamentally flawed (3 or 4 year? Science >> or Arts? Who's paying tuition?) but it means that wishy-washy answers >> simply won't work. >> >> No-one can, or will, answer that in numeric terms, because - for the reasons >> you give - it's unanswerable in that form. Instead, you'll just get a load >> of identikit answers along the lines of "They should pay as much as is fair". >> >> Mark >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >> >> >> >> -- >> Leigh Caldwell (t) +44 20 7064 6556 (m) +44 7747 062906 >> Chief executive, Inon http://www.inon.com/ >> Blog: http://www.knowingandmaking.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Unsubscribe, archive or settings: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
