The Open Lobby
| Note to anyone stumbling on this page |
|---|
| Currently, this page is Pete's brainstorm. I intend to seek out feedback soon, but my focus right now is on putting a lot of ideas in writing. If I'm not too responsive to comments, editing, or constructive criticism at this stage, it's not that I don't appreciate it; I'm just not ready for much of that yet. |
Contents
Background and general goals
The infrastructure of our world-famous democracy is outdated and crumbling, and the devastating consequences of this sad state of affairs are all around us. American democracy was first conceived long before many communication technologies were invented: blogs, wikis, email, television, the telephone, or even the telegraph. In those days, major news stories might take days to reach the general public, and an ordinary citizen would have to overcome big obstacles to get his (yes, his) views heard by those crafting government policy.
The idea of formal representation is woven deeply into our systems of government (with the possible exception of New England town meetings, see Mansbridge.) Formal representation has great benefits over anarchy, but that does not mean it is the best system; and as recent examples from outside the sphere of government clearly indicate, less formal systems, in which leadership and representation are permitted to evolve in an organic and ad-hoc manner, can yield extraordinary results.
Recent technological developments, most notably the wiki, make this kind of fluid and flexible collaboration possible.
Wiki successes
| This brief video shows the early evolution of the article on the Virginia Tech massacre. |
Systems that are based on new technology – specifically, wiki-based systems – have proven successful beyond expectation.
Wikipedia, an encyclopedia built entirely by volunteers, has yielded some excellent articles. Articles on topics that are deeply controversial, where one might reasonably expect passionate disagreement to prevent meaningful consensus, are often quite good. This results from people talking through the controversial issues, and reaching a consensus on a neutral description that informs the reader, while remaining compatible with various points of view.
But Wikipedia is one example of many. New Zealand set up a wiki-based web site to capture the public's views on what a new Policing Act might look like; by all reports (see "New Zealand Launches Wiki To Help Citizens Draft New Law" and "Police wiki lets you write the law", it yielded innovative ideas, and was a resounding success.
Please see Wiki success stories for specific examples of how various groups have used wiki-based sites to refine information and/or to be more effective and productive.
Project
The project envisioned will involve two distinct components
- developing objective, factual, and analytical information about how government and society currently operates. (Platform: wiki, database web site, in-person meetings)
- developing policy proposals
It may be best to focus on the first component, first; but both components will be ongoing. (Platform: wiki, Consensus Polling, in-person meetings)
Develop information resources
If a group is going to develop policy recommendations, it is essential that it have information the issues that will be affected. This information must be accurate, and must be accessible to all participants; in many cases, this means accurate and jargon-free summaries of large quantities of information. Such summaries may be sought out from existing sources, but more often, it will be necessary for this project to develop its own resources.
Wikipedia's Oregon portal has a lots of good info that's already had broad input, the Secretary of State's web site has a fair amount of information, there are innumerable reports from various commissions, etc.
This component will probably rely on a wiki-based web site, but other platforms for more structured information (like online databases dabbledb.com or wagn.org) may be more appropriate for some content. See an example on DabbleDB, a database of (some) Oregon ballot measures.
Develop policy proposals
Use an online, collaborative process to develop policy recommendations. The idea would be to generate legislation from a truly inclusive process, and thereby influence the relevant legislative body(s) (Portland City Council, Oregon Legislative Assembly, etc.)
This process would rely on wiki software and, most likely, Consensus Polling or some variant thereof.
Possible issues to start with
- Get government-produced materials released into the public domain, or under a free license
- (from Jen Yocum) Make and/or implement a street naming policy for Portland!
- (building on expertise of existing core group) Advise government on how to incorporate technology into its web sites, etc. (See video below)
Side benefits
Potential pitfalls
Decisions, decisions
- What scale to begin on? (Portland? a school district? Multnomah County? statewide?)
Finances and feasibility
Measures of success
- Community has demonstrable activity, enough to solicit sponsorship/advertising
- Having an elected official or significant candidate for office publicly adopt one of our policy proposals.
- Someone from within the community is inspired to run for office or sponsor a ballot measure based on policy proposal.
- Significant newspaper editorial or endorsement from public figure of policy proposal. (Focus is on content of proposal, not process.)
- Ideal: policy adopted, general public understands how it originated.
- Significant growth of community
Things to avoid
- Putting too much focus on getting the government to change, and incorporate technology. I believe the power of this idea is along the lines of "show, don't tell." The goal is to generate policy recommendations backed by a consensus so strong, that existing government entities will be compelled to adopt them.
- Getting bogged down in technical specifics. The bulk of the work should be in community-building, and on the specific tasks at hand. There will be many technical options, but if we can get the right group dynamic, it won't matter much whether we're on this or that platform.
Related thinkings
| This video shows Senate testimony from Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia founder), Google, Center for Democracy and Technology, and others. Note that the committee, save chair Joe Lieberman, declined to attend this hearing. |