Diese Version (2018/10/01 11:03) ist ein Entwurf.
Überprüfungen: 0/1

Neue Demokratie mit Github

Autor: Daniel Pätzold
Der Beginn: Diese Idee kam mir am 16.09.2018

Kurzfassung der Idee: Github und ein zusätzliches System zur Konsensierung wird zur Erstellung von Abstimmungen und Prozessen genutzt. Die Entwicklung selbst wir auf Github vorgenommen, deshalb erfolgt die geneuere Detailabstimmung dort.

Erster Entwurf auf englisch hier:

Goals of the Project "Github for Discussions"

Over the years, Github has proven as very efficient and powerful Tool for developing Applications in all ways that programs are build. It offers the ability for everyone in any project to contribute its own sourcecode, without messing up other users work and and to have good work merged into final applications in an easy way.

That way, very large applications have evolved, outscaling conservative programs in a considerable degree. My proposal would be to take those advantages to non-programming coordinations (like politics, scientific work and nearby anything where knowledge will improve my many individuals).

As of now, all those good benefits of github are starting at the point where sourcecode is written and improved.

But also programming itself starts earlier: If someone plans a programm or when there are some people involved and working together in groups for projects, the process is beginning with an idea of what to do (change or invent new). Some Members of groups may not have developer Backgrounds, but their ideas may be very inspiring for Developers and the project may strongly benefit from those ideas.

So when discussing those ideas, basically a „github thing“ happens in the minds of each individual: Starting from the existing situation (master-„idea-branch“), each one proposes its own point of few as idea. This could be called „idea-fork“, as they base on the actual situation and suggest what to change to improve it.
While the discussion is evolving, some idea-forks may combine to an aggregated idea, some forks may split from others when there are oppositional, competing against the other ideas.

After that, all forks could be reviewd (code compare) and rated - maybe by the group vote or by a leading member, representing the group.

So the best rated „idea-fork“ will be „merged“ to the old process. Everyone would now know, what to archive.

Now, programming can start in an structured way, or mybe now there is a new knowledge of something or just a new way of how to do it.

So my proposal is, to extend github to support „idea-forking“, which could be used for all larger descissions even in private, or having non- programming background to evolve existing situations.

There are some differences in „idea-forks“ to current „program-forks“, as of

  • ideas may not „work“, they may not be technical. Also it will be the goal to deliver working improvements, they cannot be proven as programs can (do they compile??? Are they causing Errors?). If they do prove as bad, they may fail. But they could be changed starting with a new „idea-fork“…
  • while „program-forks“ are mostly not opposing to each other, but covering different aspects of a program, ideas should be having multiple choices of one aspect. At The end only one choice can be chosen, the other ideas will become obsolete (but still important to see in history)
  • So resulting of this, the descission that is made at the end - if rated by the group - is based on „soft-facts“. There are very good ways to judge them in democratic way called systemic consencus, which will avoid the disadvantages of mayority decissions. This should be respected.

Basing on github, follwing functions would be needed (in my Point of view):

  1. Github does not have a „wiki-view“ on Texts supporting e.g. headlines, paragraphs, etc. When having larger projects, it would be very useful to have a user- friendly surface with functions for layouting text to make it more structured
  2. Github has hirarchical view in form of directorys. On wiki-level this should be handled by subpages to make them more readable (headline instead of directory-name)
  3. There needs to be a good way to compare ideas among one another and among the original, to quickly judge the benefits in a user-friendy way. Especially when there are a lot of ideas, this will be the largest challenge i guess.
  4. At least the needs to be a managed way to find the solution (setting up votes, define time periods, chosing how to merge)

Currently those are only thoughts of me, as unfortunatelly my spare time doesn't allow spending more time on this. I would hope to find someone that takes those ideas to an useful application or a new approach.

If you are interested in it, pleas write to me. Regards, Daniel

Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung der Website stimmen Sie dem Speichern von Cookies auf Ihrem Computer zu. Außerdem bestätigen Sie, dass Sie unsere Datenschutzbestimmungen gelesen und verstanden haben. Wenn Sie nicht einverstanden sind, verlassen Sie die Website.Weitere Information
  • user/obel1x/public/neue_demokratie_mit_github.txt
  • Zuletzt geändert: 2018/10/01 11:03
  • von Daniel