eat your own dog food

To eat your own dog food is to make the most basic reflexive process commitment: to agree to be bound by one's own rules. In politics itself, this principle is known as rule of law historically.

Perhaps most easily explained by http://wiki.zooid.org/index.php/Eat_your_own_dog_food a graphic representation approved by known trolls.

generic meaning

Please refer link en: wikipedia: eat your own dog food for the origins and spread of this expression:

"To say that an association is "eating its own dog food" means that the association uses the products that it produces. For example, Microsoft emphasizes the use of its own beta and released products inside the company.

Using one's own products has four primary benefits:
  • The product's developers are familiar with using the products they develop.
  • The association's members have direct knowledge and experience with its products.
  • Users see that the association has confidence in its own products.
  • Technically savvy users in the association, with perhaps a very wide set of business requirements and deployments, are able to discover and report bugs in the products before they are released to the general public.

The phrase can be used disparagingly by accusing a company of not eating its own dog food, such as if a networking company were to use a competitor's network products for its own day-to-day business."

eating dog food in openpolitics.ca

Openpolitics.ca itself is committed to eating its own dog food: it is mainly a forum for deliberation on political issues, consensus building and sharing research, best practices (including concerning political philosophy and ontology). Accordingly:

We eat our own dog food by using the methods pioneered here to debate issues, build consensus and share best practices about the living platform itself and politics itself and this tikiwiki-based service. Dog food that is related to these core issues is called yummy to indicate it should be eaten first:

Examples of yummy dogfood to eat:

a)paying close attention to agreements and rule that exist on the pages we create and monitor.

b) working out disputes in IPAs (rather than use intermediaries, long phone calls and long emails)


In some cases, Living Platform itself appoints an authority to decide issues rather than use tools that the site advocates and offers for large scale debates. No set of tools is perfect, and ours is devoted to large scale debates where high-overhaed, e.g. of IPA, is worth it.

With some sets of issues, notably notation and vocabulary - see living ontology, there is an endless regress if certain "final" decisions are not made by an authority or taken from a source that is itself functioning as a de facto authority. In these cases, the buck must stop somewhere.

One example of a need for such an authority is naming conventions. Another is reliance on GFDL corpus namespace for all name precedents where it applies.