On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:07:54AM +0000, hellekin wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 09/06/2016 04:12 PM, carlo von lynX wrote: > > > > Liquid feedback is a democratic platform that scales and works, > > so that is major important news. It's not a hype. > > > > Can you produce documents that demonstrate users of liquid feedback > spend less time, are more active citizens, and less stressed with this > usage? That would at least convince me to give it a try. But I have
Less time than sitting on their hands, watching frustrating documentaries and news, having long debates in little circles and being totally unable to do anything about what is going on? No. Having a perspective to actually change society and politics consumes time. But my first hand experience is that having a perspective to actually change society and politics is incredibly motivating, turns depression into joy and reason to be more active citizen. And by consequence less stressed, yes. You could read interviews from the 2011 period in which most Piraten that participated in the LQFB-based campaign would tell a story of happiness to have a perspective of fixing politics. > the intuition that LF requires more time and more attention, that > belongs to the chair-keyboard arrangement, while I'm more interested in > practical activity with real people in concrete environments. The two have to go hand in hand to achieve political change. As long as no established politician is seriously enabling such a platform to produce content, you have to take your issues and proposals to the streets, the squares, the parliaments. But in order to know what you really want as a collective, not just what you are against, you need such a tool. > For example, are there municipalities that adopted LF in their daily > workflow with citizens? Are there tangible results of such adoption? > If such adoption didn't happen yet, why? Etc. There are several situations in which LQFB was deployed with suboptimal results. Frequently also against the advice of the programmers themselves, which explain in manuals and books how they think it should be done. In most cases, the votings simply weren't binding, so after the first vote that for whatever reason got ignored by the politicians, the motivation collapsed. In other cases the issues were so fringe, that citizen didn't really care (the LiquidFriesland case). The citizen clearly have a strong urge to vote upon the big challenges of society like the future of capitalism. It is not so exciting to give them a tool that lets them decide about fences around the city park. In the PP they were allowed to take political stance on any issue they felt about - and that worked really well, even if the perspective of putting anything of that into practice was decades away. Tenthousand+ would spend immense time imagining a better society. Until the general assemblies started boycotting liquid democracy by priotizing the proposals of those who happened to be there in person. So the Piraten failed by putting the careerists interests first. I think at the Italian PP we actually have some of the best use of LQFB, because every little thing is decided there, and anyone who cares about anything becomes part of the steering directorate on that issue, simply by participating. So if you have any interest in what the group as a whole is doing, then LQFB is already a better form of governance than electing the usual board of directors. Any NGO could be a better NGO if it was using LQFB internally and reduce its dependency on charismatic leaders. There's even a success story of a software company that has been using LQFB as a participation tool. The first vote was actually a garbage decision, but the CEO had the guts to implement it anyway. The staff then realized 1. the CEO really takes their collective decisions seriously and 2. they have to be more cautious not to decide stupid things. FFrom then on the liquid feedback he got from the staff, especially regarding the design of the products, made the CEO super happy, because it made the whole company better. I saw a talk about this, don't remember in which language. So much from memory. Most of the stuff is documented in German if at all. Some exists in Italian, if that helps. Italy has seen more LQFB use than any other country. It was a driving force bringing the M5S into regional parlia- ments, especially in Sicily - right in the face of the mafia. Some parliamentaries even launched a LQFB to discuss issues in the national parliament chambers, but it didn't catch on because it was too good to be true. Italians didn't believe these folks would indeed let them "remote control" them. It had been planned to need a certain quorum before the representatives would take the issues into the parliament, but the quorum was never reached. It looked too much like a PR stunt of one specific parlamentarian. And Italians have become very allergic to PR stunts. Again, there are zillions of ways to mess it up, although the technology does the job it was designed for. That's why the necessary culture to go with it takes time to grow. -- E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption: http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/ irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/