Fwd: [Consult] ePetitions at No Ten, Bundestag, and elsewhere
Tom Steinberg aksked me to crosspost his response to AIR-L. -- Matthias ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Steinberg <dowire@tomsteinberg.co.uk> Date: Nov 21, 2006 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [Consult] ePetitions at No Ten, Bundestag, and elsewhere To: consult@groups.dowire.org Hello Matthias, Thanks for moving this debate to this list. Unfortunately nobody seems to be around to approve my membership request to AIR-L so that I can put mySociety's side of this: clearly the inability to debate issues online in the way we want is today's hot topic! I suppose my overall reaction to reading the thread is that such a bright group of people seem to have missed something our ordinary users have understood in droves: the site is a beta and if you want features added you have to ask for them. I'm afraid that complaining about them on a list we don't even know about doesn't actually count as constructive. Our other more common garden users have realised they need to actually send us their feedback, and we've made a slew of changes in response: http://www.mysociety.org/2006/11/17/this-is-what-beta-means-the-first-48-hou... Now onto the issue itself - the lack of forums. Our design philosophy as an organisation has always been clear: pick a simple task that benefits the public and solve it as well as you possibly can before launching. Then as soon as it is out in the wild, respond to your users demands as fast as you can (within the constraints of your resources). In our case this meant building a massively load-capable petition signing system that had transparency engineered in from the start, and then changing it really fast in response to user requests. For everyone on this and the AIR-L list who would like to see forums, I have just one question: * Do you consider it possible to design deliberative discussion system on a site as sensitive as No10 which will generate debate sufficiently mature as to merit the sizeable public spending on moderation that would be required? If so, how? Personally, I'm sceptical that the No10 site can ever host good discussions, and running HearFromYourMP.com and TheyWorkForYou.com I think mySociety can claim to have some experience in this field. But I'm just one citizen, and if you are British it is your democractic system too: if you want forums you should ask for them and express your support for whatever hiring of civil servants or building of technology would be required. Lastly, please note that for those of you who think I'm ignoring the fact that there ARE discussion forums on other petition sites, please just absorb the following scale difference: * Total petitions submitted on and offline to Scottish Parliament in first 7 years : 964 * Total petitions submitted online to No10 site in first 6 days: 925 I look forward to your feedback on this issue very much. best, Tom Steinberg Director, mySociety.org Member profile for Tom Steinberg: http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/tomsteinberg ----------------------------------------- Group home for Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation: http://groups.dowire.org/main/groups/consult Replies go to members of Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation with all posts on this topic here: http://groups.dowire.org/topic/143437 For digest version or to leave Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation, email consult@groups.dowire.org with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*. Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation is hosted by Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
Thanks Matthias, a few people on the list will be rehearsing their arguments... Sorry I need to go now :) Wainer -------------------------------------------- Wainer Lusoli w.lusoli@chester.ac.uk http://www.lusoli.info http://del.icio.us/lusoli
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Trenel Sent: 21 November 2006 19:15 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Cc: tom@mysociety.org Subject: [Air-l] Fwd: [Consult] ePetitions at No Ten, Bundestag,and elsewhere
Tom Steinberg aksked me to crosspost his response to AIR-L. -- Matthias
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Steinberg <dowire@tomsteinberg.co.uk> Date: Nov 21, 2006 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [Consult] ePetitions at No Ten, Bundestag, and elsewhere To: consult@groups.dowire.org
Hello Matthias,
Thanks for moving this debate to this list. Unfortunately nobody seems to be around to approve my membership request to AIR-L so that I can put mySociety's side of this: clearly the inability to debate issues online in the way we want is today's hot topic!
I suppose my overall reaction to reading the thread is that such a bright group of people seem to have missed something our ordinary users have understood in droves: the site is a beta and if you want features added you have to ask for them. I'm afraid that complaining about them on a list we don't even know about doesn't actually count as constructive. Our other more common garden users have realised they need to actually send us their feedback, and we've made a slew of changes in response:
http://www.mysociety.org/2006/11/17/this-is-what-beta-means-th e-first-48-hours-of-petitions/
Now onto the issue itself - the lack of forums. Our design philosophy as an organisation has always been clear: pick a simple task that benefits the public and solve it as well as you possibly can before launching. Then as soon as it is out in the wild, respond to your users demands as fast as you can (within the constraints of your resources). In our case this meant building a massively load-capable petition signing system that had transparency engineered in from the start, and then changing it really fast in response to user requests.
For everyone on this and the AIR-L list who would like to see forums, I have just one question:
* Do you consider it possible to design deliberative discussion system on a site as sensitive as No10 which will generate debate sufficiently mature as to merit the sizeable public spending on moderation that would be required? If so, how?
Personally, I'm sceptical that the No10 site can ever host good discussions, and running HearFromYourMP.com and TheyWorkForYou.com I think mySociety can claim to have some experience in this field. But I'm just one citizen, and if you are British it is your democractic system too: if you want forums you should ask for them and express your support for whatever hiring of civil servants or building of technology would be required.
Lastly, please note that for those of you who think I'm ignoring the fact that there ARE discussion forums on other petition sites, please just absorb the following scale difference:
* Total petitions submitted on and offline to Scottish Parliament in first 7 years : 964
* Total petitions submitted online to No10 site in first 6 days: 925
I look forward to your feedback on this issue very much.
best,
Tom Steinberg
Director, mySociety.org
Member profile for Tom Steinberg: http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/tomsteinberg
-----------------------------------------
Group home for Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation: http://groups.dowire.org/main/groups/consult
Replies go to members of Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation with all posts on this topic here: http://groups.dowire.org/topic/143437
For digest version or to leave Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation, email consult@groups.dowire.org with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation is hosted by Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I'd also x-posted to mysociety for their/Tom's reactions to the remarks and comments on this list. I'll x-post this comment to them as well ..... The petition with the most numerical support so far is: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to repeal the Hunting Act 2004. Submitted by Nick Onslow FRES Deadline to sign up by: 15 November 2007 Signatures: 9366 Some of the less well supported I posted before. I'd observe that crude numbers (as in how many petitions are posted, or even the numbers supporting any one petition) are only one element of any evaluation. The nature of the petition, and what is being demanded, must count; and longer-term the effect and/or impact, contrasted/compared with more traditional methods. The concommitant publicity and coverage of 'traditional' petitions following marches on Downing Street, rallies in Central Hall Westminster, petitions to Parliament, lobbying Parliament, etc., are all well used and well known means of political campaigning - though how effective they are is a big question. But effectiveness can be measured in how much the publicity rallies even more people to the cause (e.g. Make Poverty History), although impact on government policies may be less than hoped for.
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Trenel Sent: 21 November 2006 19:15 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Cc: tom@mysociety.org Subject: [Air-l] Fwd: [Consult] ePetitions at No Ten, Bundestag,and elsewhere
Tom Steinberg aksked me to crosspost his response to AIR-L. <snip>
Dominic Pinto BA MIEEE MCMI MRi FRSA http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341 In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001
x-posted from mysociety.org Tom Steinberg says: Dominic, You quoted me from that list, but I think you missed the core question I posed for everyone there, and anyone reading this: Do you consider it possible to design deliberative discussion system on a site as sensitive as No10 which will generate debate sufficiently mature as to merit the sizeable public spending on moderation that would be required? If so, how? In my view, thats whats at the heart of your three posts above Tom written on November 24th, 2006 Dominic Pinto says: In a representative democracy there will (or perhaps that should be) be multiple fora for deliberative discussion for debate that is sufficiently mature to justify the cost of moderation. I paraphrase, and slightly distort, as Im not aware of any means that meet your tests the Houses of Parliament dont (slight qualification that the second chamber does probably do more mature things than the junior one). Judging by the quality of what this government in particular, and other governments generally, have come up with in the recent Queens speech, and the pitiful japes of their spin machines, rubbishing of individuals seem as not one of us, and the general paucity of real debate, and the impoverishment of our archaic form of government, I see little justifcation of the No 10 site. The petition system exposes people concerns and interests, and enables my support to be made public also. So perhaps these will reach a wider audience, and delivered direct to Downing Street. The publicity and exposure of a mass petition delivered publicly reaches (or potentially reaches) vastly more than any of these do. A suggestion to try and measure reach would be to record site hits and naviagtion to individual petitions, and show this, as well as the actual signees. Friends are highly dubious about this petition system, and that the support of say the repeal of the Hunting Act is representative. And at the end of the day, it is still a matter of what significant impact or effect these have. Surely you dont envisage Blur or Broon acting because the highest number counted support the repeal of the Hunting Act? :-) Dominic x-posted to Air-l written on November 28th, 2006 Dominic Pinto BA MIEEE MCMI MRi FRSA http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341 In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001
Hi Tom - and others As much as I like your stance on the whole petition issue, I think the question is ill posed: too many leads in one rhetorical, type II [negative answer] stem. To your specific question, the answer is: yes, it would have been possible to build in deliberation. It has been done in relation to Parliamentary Committees, and in departmental consolations. Why not with No10? Were you allowed to do so? I don't know, you should tell us, did you ask? Should money follow maturity? No, it should foster maturity. That is the point of deliberation [you you believe deliberative theorists]. Is moderation too expensive when billions are spent in man+equipment in Iraq [that people in Britain seem reluctant to accept]? Well, I leave that to No10. Comments welcome Best Wainer
x-posted from mysociety.org
Tom Steinberg says:
Dominic,
You quoted me from that list, but I think you missed the core question I posed for everyone there, and anyone reading this:
"Do you consider it possible to design deliberative discussion system on a site as sensitive as No10 which will generate debate sufficiently mature as to merit the sizeable public spending on moderation that would be required? If so, how?"
In my view, that's what's at the heart of your three posts above.
Tom
written on November 24th, 2006
Dominic Pinto says:
In a representative democracy there will (or perhaps that should be) be multiple fora for 'deliberative discussion' for 'debate' that is 'sufficiently mature' to justify the cost of moderation. I paraphrase, and slightly distort, as I'm not aware of any means that meet your tests .. the Houses of Parliament don't (slight qualification that the second chamber does probably do more mature things than the junior one). Judging by the quality of what this government in particular, and other governments generally, have come up with in the recent Queen's speech, and the pitiful 'japes' of their spin machines, rubbishing of individuals seem as 'not one of us', and the general paucity of real debate, and the impoverishment of our archaic form of government, I see little justifcation of the No 10 site.
The petition system exposes people concerns and interests, and enables 'my' support to be made public also. So perhaps these will reach a wider audience, and delivered 'direct to Downing Street.' The publicity and exposure of a mass petition delivered publicly reaches (or potentially reaches) vastly more than any of these do. A suggestion to try and measure reach would be to record site hits and naviagtion to individual petitions, and show this, as well as the actual signees.
Friends are highly dubious about this petition system, and that the support of say the repeal of the Hunting Act is representative.
And at the end of the day, it is still a matter of what significant impact or effect these have. Surely you don't envisage Blur or Broon acting because the highest number counted support the repeal of the Hunting Act? :-)
Dominic
x-posted to Air-l
written on November 28th, 2006
Dominic Pinto BA MIEEE MCMI MRi FRSA http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto
e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341
In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001 _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I've posted to mysociety.org - do join in there as well! Curious - and I'd welcome comments - was the nature of this rejected petition off the No. 10 site: ---- We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to launch an independent review into the privatisation of the British railway network that considers whether it was the right thing to do. Submitted by Rajesh Joshi More details from petition creator More details cannot be shown Petition Rejected This petition has been rejected because: It contained party political material Additional information about this rejection: Sorry, your reference to Baroness Thatcher makes it difficult for us to accept this. If you could just remove the reference to her, then we are clear of party political issues. ----- I couldn't see any party political reference, and in any case why should that be a bar? After all, the electorla and legislative system is predicated on party politics. Doh! Or has something really deep and significant been overlooked? --- Wainer Lusoli <w.lusoli@lse.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi Tom - and others
As much as I like your stance on the whole petition issue, I think the question is ill posed: too many leads in one rhetorical, type II [negative answer] stem.
<snip> Dominic Pinto BA MIEEE MCMI MRi FRSA http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341 In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001
participants (3)
-
Dominic Pinto -
Matthias Trenel -
Wainer Lusoli