[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Demexp-dev] Re: TOP invitation to programmers.
[Demexp-dev] Re: TOP invitation to programmers.
Fri, 6 Oct 2006 01:12:48 +0200
I was the author of those comments, not too harsh hopefully.
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 07:43:36PM +0200, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> Thanks for these links. First time I hear about leparlement.org.
It's a one man project, a hobby, GPL and made with Ruby on Rails.
The goal is a forum/mailingList/chat/news system, where every post is
also a poll and potentially a vote.
My original goal is a collaborative writing system (it was called
VeniVidiVoti and was made with java/JBoss/cocoon/PostgreSQL, started in
> > - voting method is "Condorcet", which is often considered slightly too
> > complex for most people
> It is correct the current voting method is Condorcet (and this choice
> is not random) but other voting methods might be implemented
> too. Patches are welcome. :-)
It's mostly a question of difficulties, Condorcet is difficult to code,
complex to grasp, tricky to develop a good GUI for. It's a great method
none the less.
Personally I prefer approval voting for a start, which will be almost
easy to expand to range voting.
> > - special powers to some administrators whose role is to organise polls
> Not really. The only special power is on classification (needed for
> the future delegation). But everyone can raise questions and provide
This is the "special powers". Without it the whole system will just
become larger and larger and less and less usable (yes, you know that
> > - technology is a very good one, but sadly it is not used much in the
> > world and will have troubles finding programmers
> It somewhat true. But works like Augustin's one might open us to the
> much larger world of PHP / Drupal programmers. Actually, the server
> has a public API so every kind of client might connect.
I wonder if integration in an existing and large CMS won't be too big a
load on your development... The forums to polls integration does seem
tricky, same with identities.
> > - no possibility to use the whole system as a forum where every
> > question/answer is just one more post
> Yes. The system is intended on purpose (let's do one thing but do it
> well) as a voting tool, not as the place where the debate takes
> place. The debate might occur on many other already existing places
> (Drupal, forum, wikis, and so on...).
Yet question/answers *will* be used directly for debate. You *will* have
to remove or move those that do.
But it's none the less great to focus on simplicity.
> > - few considerations for security
> ... for the moment! Because precisely we do not want to deal with this
> in an approximative way ...
Programmers, algorithms, languages, OS, networks, configurations,
administrators, users, even hardware, are a liability.
There is one solution that _could_ bring *trust*: total and complete
transparency. To the point of real time *reproducibility*.
To the point where a *P2P* system of servers can be set up by any number
of willing individuals. Then *PGP signatures* to ensure the relationship
between a vote and a persona. *Electoral lists* (of PGP public keys) to
http://leparlement.org/security (rather slow if you participate, I
choose the wrong algorithm for a hierarchy, the nested tree set. Am
going to change or optimize it...).
> > But, they have a group of intelligent people involved in a cool social
> > idea/ideal.
> Thanks. :-)
We do share the same ambitions.
> > 2. Special powers.
> > I am all for special grouping of users. For example you might want to
> > differate between users above and below 18 years of age (or another
> > arbitrary age). And you might wish to group users into geographical areas as
> > is common in politics today. The techology should make possible such uses.
> > How it is used in practice should be decided by users.
> Same as above. Beyond the technical points, philosophically, I
> somewhat disagree with this point of view. But it does not prevent it
> from being implemented in the software.
*Electoral lists*: to determine the legitimacy of one's participation in
a decision. But is that "special powers"?
> > 4. Security.
> > This is important indeed. But not only the demexp-server is responsible for
> > the security. We have the physical server etc to worry about too. The
> > security issue is not something that can be finished from the start, but
> > something that will be an ongoing issue.
> I completely agree. Consider it as a Graal (after several years and
> many thousands of users): a distributed server. But it will be for
> demexp 4.0 or above... :-)
Use your server as a mailing list, subscribe your servers to some
others, and then, tadam, you automatically have it! :)
BTW, here is a pointer to lomax's Delegable Proxy and Free Associations.
Personally I always called this DP feature "transitive delegations", but
anyway, this is just the same thing, which you do also plan to use
(unless I'm mistaken) => http://www.beyondpolitics.org
> Frédéric Lehobey
echarp - "Parlement":http://leparlement.org/fr