Jump to content

Talk:142.177.X.X: Difference between revisions

yes factions are bottom up, this spectrum is just to help them form and rendezvous with outsiders
No edit summary
(yes factions are bottom up, this spectrum is just to help them form and rendezvous with outsiders)
Line 24: Line 24:


----
----
[[Faction]]: 13 links (position nro. 1 on the wanted pages). I think that I understand the consept of faction, but originally in my mind factions were something that would emerge in a self-organizing manner, not by some developers dreaming up boxes we can put people in and then define what they are interested in and how they participate. I mean: just get the infrastructure available that tight or loose [[consortium]]s can start to form and let the consortiums define their (extended FOAF-style) relationships to each other...
[[Faction]]: 13 links (position nro. 1 on the wanted pages). I think that I understand the consept of faction, but originally in my mind factions were something that would emerge in a self-organizing manner,  


::Yes, agreed, they will form bottom-up.  But to help them form we must establish FIRST what complexity they resolve for us SECOND how we expect them to present their shared priorities to the system to help them prioritize themselves and THIRD what parts of our own [[glossary]] are up to them not us to define.
:To do bottom-up design we must change this name from "wanted" pages - in design you want the most abstract ideas to be defined later - they are not "wanted" at this point and it is foolish to be forced by wikipedia3 into premature def'n.
 
not by some developers dreaming up boxes we can put people in and then define what they are interested in and how they participate. I mean: just get the infrastructure available that tight or loose [[consortium]]s can start to form and let the consortiums define their (extended FOAF-style) relationships to each other...
 
:Yes, agreed, they will form bottom-up.  But to help them form we must establish FIRST what complexity they resolve for us SECOND how we expect them to present their shared priorities to the system to help them prioritize themselves and THIRD what parts of our own [[glossary]] are up to them not us to define. is also not up to us to tell them they need a [[consortium]] form or should just let people self-identify as say "Greens" and then list their concerns.  If this leads to a concept of "Green" different from [[Greenpeace]] or [[Green Parties]] that is an [[audit]] issue we can deal with later.  We need just this vague colour spectrum indicator to help those with similar values form a self-image useful to link up with other groups "outside".
Anonymous user
We use only those cookies necessary for the functioning of the website.