Loading...
 
Print

open politics in force

Is a proposal by Craig Hubley for an explicit set of rules, enforceable in any political wiki that supports open politics itself.

The name open politics in force applies to Hubley's proposal only, though it is open for criticism, its positions are quite fixed and claimed under copyright? - noderives? - all rights in the name are claimed as trademark.

It is not in effect at openpolitics.ca itself but will be for other open politics services in other jurisdictions outside Canada.


Clarifying its exact implications and use can be done on this page?. This is a service priority of the open politics web. It is unclear whether it is also a priority of openpolitics.ca itself. This is a take it or leave it proposal with the trademarked ruleset in sympathetic point of view.


[+] rights

[+] origins

open politics in force: the ruleset


Do not change the positions labelled R, C, E, here. Add arguments in issue/position/argument form, or editors note afterwards.

The positions report those of the author and are not amenable to direct debate by edit in this form. What follows is as exact a reproduction of the trademarked, copyrighted, original as our research allows, with annotations and criticims clearly marked. The author is encouraged to correct it from time to time.

[+] accountability

[+] diversity

[+] rootedness

[+] democracy

[+] legality

liquidity


Another broad set of concerns could be called vaguely "liquidity?" in the sense of economics, meaning that an asset built up for one use can be readily and easily redeployed for other purposes not originally forseen. For instance, a major barrier to liquidity is a tyranny of small differences applying to license?s and a lack of predictable ways to syndicate?. Addressing liquidity concerns should eventually make a service self-funding? as those who rely on it become motivated to keep it going. Note that this necessarily implies some guarantees that it will keep running even if current management abandons it, thus the democracy concerns above - possibly only a democratic domain can be wholly and reliably self-funding. This could become a sixth scale as above. For now Living Ontology Web explores merits of this idea and proposes a prototype to prove it.

addresses barriers to entry, costs


Some barrier to entry? concerns regarding the cost of OPIF provisions can likewise be addressed by liquidity, as pooled? volunteer centres and pooled donor list?s are exploited, especially by the most central or critical web service involved in a sociosemantic web. Perhaps more importantly, common conventions adopted to ensure liquidity make training easier and translation more justifiable.

configuration and context in which expectations are formed


this section is also under CC-by-nc-sa

Legal terms of use agreements and content sharing arrangements remove the power to put arbitrary conditions (but not all conditions) on re-use of material by political opponents. As a minimum the CC-by-nc-sa license must be used, to allow all nonprofit? use.
      • argument against: this seems unenforceable. public policy proposals are if anything, public domain.
        • counter-argument: the proposals aren't the aspect that affect liquidity, the standards and audits and methods are. If the ISO and ITU? can charge for this, so could another regulator.

More restrictive (but still share-alike) license terms that might forbid military? or police? or extinction use are reasonable for technical? but not political positions. Still more restrictive terms that use trademark laws might also exist to ensure that rulesets do not bifurcate too easily.

Hardware, network, backup and other operations standards are also recommended to ensure privacy and reliable service?, e.g. web service, and leave few (or ideally no) technical excuses for sudden losses of service at sensitive times, e.g. during an election when a political party relying on the open politics web might become disabled.

Performance audits establish the above formal criteria and validate the right to participate in a web ring? / search engine? of "open politics", e.g. the open politics web.
      • argument for: comparing with other services and jurisdictions is a good thing.

editorial and technical standards implied


Within which, editorial? "tag" and some other more technical? standards apply:

These make it easy to find debates that stand between specific people, issues that are relevant to particular places or decisions to be made by a deadline. These standards integrate "attention.xml?", RSS feeds and major mediawiki watchlist?s. Note watchlists are now directly supported by mediawiki as RSS feeds. (a test suite for this complements audits).

Framing, rhetoric and metaphors all matter; Consider avoiding terms that imply or invite:

All of these tend to selectively empower certain metaphors, confuse debate, enable cliques & make translation difficult. (some service providers can help the open party address these problems thoroughly)

room for improvement


  • Essentially, these are managerial?, operational? and technical guarantees that administrators adhere to to ensure equal-power relationship?s exist in policy debate forum?s; they don't deal with hardware or net access or training, but, they should - that's an area that needs some investigation. Also the relationship between Expectations, Ethics, and what is effective (from a factional or partisan viewpoint) or efficient (from a more neutral bureaucratic or operational perspective) needs exploration. 'See being/doing/going.''

The ruleset is CC-by-nd? by Craig Hubley. All the other elements of this page licensed CC-by-nc-sa by Efficient Civics Guild.




Show php error messages