--- Log opened Tue Dec 20 00:00:37 2011
07:04 < conseo> serapath: can we coordinate our efforts for the ovn proposal?
08:53 < jonas_liljegren> ovn?
10:00 < serapath> sure
10:00 < serapath> we should
10:01 < serapath> currently there are so many different efforts from different people to build a occupy germany project, its staggering
10:01 < serapath> OVN = Open Voting Network
10:02 < mcallan> jonas_liljegren: https://wiki.occupy.net/wiki/Open_Voting_Network
10:02 < mcallan> serapath, conseo: i traced the likely source of the slowdown to skype running on one of my computers
10:02 < jonas_liljegren> :)
10:03 < jonas_liljegren> Any of them planning to use my voting program?
10:03 < jonas_liljegren> Is there anybody who coordinates all the efforts?
10:04 < jonas_liljegren> I'd be happy to participate, but its too much
10:05 < mcallan> ovn is my own proposal, are you asking about that?  or occupy at large?
10:07 < mcallan> serapath, conseo: if it happens again though, let me know
10:07 < jonas_liljegren> I'm talking about Online voting systems for liquid democracy
10:07 < jonas_liljegren> especially for E2D direct democracy parties
10:10 < mcallan> sorry, can't help with parties.  ovn has nothing to do with parties
10:10 < mcallan> (neither does occupy)
10:11 < jonas_liljegren> mcallan: Have you heard of E2D?
10:12 < jonas_liljegren> It's not political parties
10:13 < serapath> yes
10:13 < jonas_liljegren> http://e2d-international.org/
10:13 < serapath> i've heard of them and browsed their website
10:13 < serapath> not sure of what to make of it
10:14 < jonas_liljegren> It's a way to transition to direct democracy from the ground up
10:15 < jonas_liljegren> Instead of trying to make the politicians adopt direct democracy, we can introduce it from the grassroots level, even if they are not partixipating
10:15 < jonas_liljegren> We just let everybody be involved in every vote in every level of government
10:15 < mcallan> i know about e2d.  there has been discussion in the list too (paul nollen and others)... but they *are* parties, i'm afraid
10:16 < jonas_liljegren> Parties yes. But they are completely un-political. Its just a new system for direct democracy
10:17 < mcallan> true, they compete on tech grounds, not political
10:19 < mcallan> they are just vote-servers, wrapped up as parties
10:22 < mcallan> anyway, they're headed for problems: http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2011-November/004545.html
10:22 < mcallan> vote mirroring is the solution, and the ovn is pioneering it
10:23 < mcallan> (just to come full circle)
10:37 < serapath> yes
10:37 < mcallan> serapath: i just sent you an email about problems with your MTA or (not sure) mine
10:37 < serapath> yesterday i had a long discussion with someone of the national networking working group of the german occupy camps
10:37 < serapath> it's hard to convince them about OVN
10:38 < mcallan> it's not ready yet, it'll take another week maybe.  but what did they say?
10:40 < serapath> did not receive the mail
10:40 < serapath> there is one project from a group of occupy frankfurt
10:40 < serapath> thats my home town ;) ... 
10:40 < serapath> blog.theoccupyproject.de
10:41 < serapath> sry
10:41 < serapath> http://blog.theoccupyboard.com/
10:41 < serapath> they dont think ovn is a good idea, because it removes competition... i tried to explain, that it only takes away competition for voters, not for users
10:41 < serapath> but somehow they seem to not be convinced yet
10:41 < serapath> but i'm working on that
10:43 < mcallan> ok.  you are right btw, and thanks.  the ovn is designed to prevent monopoly.  monopoly is what removes competition, of course
10:44 < mcallan> gotta go for 30 min, back soon
11:31 < serapath> i dont understand it too... hmm
11:32 < serapath> did you try to send me an email?
11:34 < serapath> i like the proposal ovn.occupy.net
11:35 < serapath> maybe conseo could make a similar proposal to the german occupy movement, at least he's no officially in charge of comparing the different software projects and suggest a software to be used by the german occupy movement
11:36 < serapath> they also said they like the idea of OVN
11:36 < serapath> the next online teamspeak meeting is on december 27th
11:37 < serapath> there is also a national networking working group, which will work on the detail, but i guess they currently wait for input from me or conseo or maybe occupy berlin 
11:37 < serapath> the sooner we act the better our chances
11:37 < serapath> ...i wish thomas could support us :-)
11:38 < serapath> ...btw, 30 minutes are long gone :) ...what about MTA?
11:38 < mcallan> i'm structuring the ovn right now, (1) down and (2)(3) to go...
11:39 < mcallan> till it's structured, i don't think it can catch on...
11:39 < mcallan> that's the idea of the structure.
11:39 < mcallan> re mta.  yes, your mta does not like mine anymore.  so i sent email by a different mta and no bounce yet
11:40 < conseo> serapath: if they want to push projects we have to let them, because they won't listen. but we can make the arguments and point out the problems to the solution in a first step
11:40 < conseo> ovn is one answer to these problems, we don't have to push it directly. 
11:41 < conseo> serapath: you have done that already in the metaoccupy pad
11:41 < conseo> serapath: do you have microphone or telephone, so we can maybe talk instead of type the fingers wound?
11:42 < conseo> jonas_liljegren: what do you think about ovn?
11:42 < jonas_liljegren> I think that there is too much going on. I'm missing a local OWS meeting right now...
11:43 < conseo> serapath: while this is a nice looking diagram: http://blog.theoccupyboard.com/ where is the social problem they are trying to solve? they dive into technology without even laying out their problems
11:43 < conseo> serapath: basically they build a meta search engine for occupy (or even more precise a crawler)
11:43 < conseo> this is not really new imo
11:44 < conseo> and i don't see it solving any problems besides aggregating some (maybe even random) content
11:44 < conseo> RegEx are really bad for textual understanding (as are computers)
11:44 < jonas_liljegren> I'm afraid that it's still to hard to cooperate right now
11:44 < jonas_liljegren> But I really would like to if it was possible
11:44 < conseo> jonas_liljegren: the problem is imo that consensus building will not work if tech is broken at any place
11:45 < conseo> and non interoperable vote servers are broken from the start
11:45 < jonas_liljegren> There are a lot of quite specific things that I would like to have implemented
11:45 < conseo> in ovn?
11:45 < jonas_liljegren> In GOV
11:45 < conseo> in government?
11:45 < jonas_liljegren> In the system used by aktivdemokrati.se
11:46 < conseo> ok
11:46 < jonas_liljegren> the Online Voting System for liquid democracy
11:46 < jonas_liljegren> We need more developers
11:46 < conseo> jonas_liljegren: you mean "a" voting system for liquid democracy?
11:46 < conseo> we all do
11:47 < conseo> i could duplicate myself 1/0 times
11:47 < jonas_liljegren> :)
11:47 < conseo> this is why i think cooperation will help us to build a foundation to attract more developers
11:47 < conseo> several projects are a lot less likely to fail than any single small one
11:48 < conseo> at the current state we have a big disadvantage to money and marketing
11:48 < jonas_liljegren> But is thare any possibility to actually agree on what the system should do?
11:48 < conseo> this is not necessary, we just need to build a common voters registry, so we can map consent from different platforms
11:49 < jonas_liljegren> But that will probably not be possible with different ideas about voting delegation
11:49 < conseo> in fact this allows radical ideas, because you don't need to fix all needs and can try something very specific
11:49 < conseo> which delegation model would be a problem?
11:49 < conseo> how the systems map the data depends on them
11:49 < conseo> mcallan: ping
11:50 < jonas_liljegren> conseo: We want to have multiple delegates that are used for all votings and that can be changed continually
11:51 < conseo> you mean i would vote for a group of people instead of a single one?
11:51 < jonas_liljegren> Delegates are not people
11:51 < jonas_liljegren> They may be controlled by people
11:52 < jonas_liljegren> And there would be different delegates for different topics
11:52 < conseo> on your mainpage two persons are texted with "delegat"
11:53 < jonas_liljegren> Thats a way to try to give the idea
11:53 < jonas_liljegren> A delegate may be a traditional political party
11:53 < jonas_liljegren> or a computer alghoritm
11:53 < jonas_liljegren> or a single person
11:53 < conseo> well, no prob. you can map that to a user account
11:54 < conseo> or not?
11:54 < jonas_liljegren> And you would have different delegates for different topics based on your choosen advisors
11:55 < serapath> hey conseo, no, still no microphone :( ...theoccupyboard is one of many approaches that are currently try to convince the movement. I think we have a really good standing, because you were officially anounced to compare the software projects, so ideally you could come up with something that says the decision must be made by the users, but in order to allow that, we need the OVN, so whatever software is used in the beginning should support t
11:55 < jonas_liljegren> Delegates and persons are handle differently
11:55 < jonas_liljegren> person votes are anonymous. Delegate votes are public
11:56 < jonas_liljegren> And the voting deadline will be different. Delegates will have to give thier votes some time before the deadline for people
11:57 < jonas_liljegren> And delegates do not have to have the right to vote. Their vote does not count. Only the votes of the people that delegates to them
11:57 < mcallan> conseo: pong
11:57 < jonas_liljegren> conseo: ... Is this still compatible with what you got?
11:57 < conseo> mcallan: ok, ovn does not work with anonymous voting, right?
11:59 < mcallan> right, or at least the anon votes cannot be mirrored
11:59 < jonas_liljegren> GOV also has a range of choises for voting deadlines, including the integral method that sets the time for voting based on the participation and degree of consensus.
12:00 < conseo> jonas_liljegren: do you really need that for e2d. because i have thought about doing sth. similiar with votorola and political parties here in germany (maybe take them over, like DieLinke), but i don't see why anonymous voting or the integral algorithm is directly tight to that
12:00 < jonas_liljegren> And besides yes/no votes, we also has median votes and condorcet prioroty voting
12:01 < jonas_liljegren> sth?
12:01 < conseo> jonas_liljegren: votorola has different counting engines, so we can count votes based on their properties differently
12:02 < conseo> we also fix the surpression problem of anonymity, by simply going to some other voter and let this trustworthy bystanding person raise the issue for you
12:02 < conseo> if this does not work in your environ, then anonymity won't protect you from surpression anyway imho
12:02 < conseo> sth=something
12:02 < jonas_liljegren> Anonymity is really important for a lot of people. Along with assurance against manipulation. We should use standard electronic identification. Its a standard ID in Sweden
12:03 < conseo> and it terribly breaks anonymity, because the state is controlling authenticity
12:04 < conseo> pseudonyms already allow you to do most of the stuff you can do anonymously
12:04 < jonas_liljegren> You can separate identity with the actual voting
12:04 < conseo> if you want transparency than at some point it has to be verifyable that it is this person
12:05 < jonas_liljegren> The standard electronic ID in sweden are implemented by a couple of different agents that you can choose between. For now its mostly banks.
12:05 < conseo> and you trust banks?
12:05 < conseo> i mean in regard of not blaiming descendants to the state
12:05 < jonas_liljegren> But thats a different issue. The point is that we want to identify the person and see that that person has voting rights for the specific voting
12:06 < conseo> ah ok, so the nationality decides that?
12:06 < jonas_liljegren> The rules for participation can by changed by direct democracy
12:07 < jonas_liljegren> But the starting point for voting will be similar to what is used today
12:07 < conseo> hmm i don't understand the specific problem you are trying to solve. can you summarize it in a few paragraphs? last time i checked your page had almost an essay length
12:08 < conseo> and it was swedish i think
12:08 < jonas_liljegren> ... I just wondered if its possible to cooperate in developing the voting software
12:08 < conseo> yeah me too
12:09 < conseo> i would take stuff out to make it compatible with your concepts
12:09 < jonas_liljegren> We have to solve the issue with protecting against voting fraud and at the same time providing anonymity
12:09 < conseo> but mirroring depends on identification and if you encapsulate that in sake of anonymity than we simply can't cooperate on the voter registry
12:09 < jonas_liljegren> And thats not hard. GOV already does that to a large degree
12:10 < jonas_liljegren> Its possible to separate the voting from the original identity
12:10 < conseo> i will ask friends to raise issues critical to me, i don't think that won't work
12:10 < conseo> ok
12:10 < conseo> meaning?
12:11 < conseo> the voter registry (identification) is already seperated with ovn in our pov
12:11 < jonas_liljegren> meaning that I think that there is a way to guarantee the voting secret and still make the voting verifiable
12:12 < jonas_liljegren> I have always presented GOV ad a proof of concept and refered to Votorola for what will be used for the real implementation.
12:13 < conseo> ok
12:14 < conseo> bbl, interesting talk so stay around ;-)
12:16 < jonas_liljegren> I'll might attend the local occupy planning meeting now...
12:17 < jonas_liljegren> And aktivdemokrati.se needs a new web server. :-/
12:20 < jonas_liljegren> integral alghoritm is not tied to E2D directly. But we also experiments with making GOV useful for internal decisionmaking within organizations. And the integral method solves a lot of related problems
12:20 < jonas_liljegren> among other things
12:21 < jonas_liljegren> GOV also has a system for continous priority votings on elected positions, that will let you continously vote for things like webmaster, chairman or treasurer.
12:32 < jonas_liljegren> I'm using a different "id" for each voter for each "proposition",  so that you can not connect one voting to another
12:48 < conseo> well, this is a progress, but not yet possible to be a shared registry
13:00 < serapath> hey conseo
13:00 < serapath> wanna talk?
17:32 < jonas_liljegren> I'm back
18:25 -!- tropology_ is now known as tropology
--- Log closed Wed Dec 21 00:00:52 2011