Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- euroliquid [2012/08/04 12:59] – [Subscription and Certification] robotica
+++ euroliquid [2012/08/14 16:36] – [Subscription and Certification] robotica
@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 Almost anonymous means that the representers have the autority to ask informations about any pirate to their secretariat to verify if it is real.
+ ===== Bootstrap Proposal =====
+Long term set-up principles:
+  * For transparency, the euroliquid is publicly viewable  including  who voted how.
+  *  Participants are politicians thus bound to transparency. Their realnames and affiliations are displayed in their public profiles. Further data is optional.
+  *  The database shall be downloadable in its entirety so anyone can set up a mirror of it.
+  *  Should the European Pirates be doubtful of the Italian administration, they can decide to migrate the platform elsewhere without depending on Italian consent.
+The euroliquid bootstrap is a sort of "Constituate Assembly" for the actual euroliquid within a liquid feedback installation itself. It is designed to debate on how it should operate, starting from the current legal status quo. Strategy for bootstrapping euroliquid:
+  * We only create one area called "euroliquid administration."
+  * We only admit one delegate per partipating EU country to start with, so you have to coordinate among each other what your vote should be. You can use your own liquid feedback to find your party's bootstrap opinions... (hint, hint ;))
+  * We only create one voting-policy which is 100%-majority also known as consensus.
+  * To even start the debate, the quorum is at 50/100 - so the majority of participants needs to agree that something needs to be debated.
+  * For a proposal to pass to the vote, 10/100 support is sufficient, so you can add an extra voting option last-minute in the verification period and have a couple of folks support it.
+  * For rapid bootstrap it has a one two day new, four day debate, one day verify and three day vote policy. This is just for bootstrap presuming there will always be one delegate per member party that finds the time to participate.
+  * Whenever consensus isn't reached on time, we can reopen the same debate.
+The things we will have to find consensus upon are:
+  * Potential changes to the bootstrap policies above.
+  * Weighting maths for future non-consensus voting: by which formula do some countries get more voting power then others? Population size? Success of respective Pirate Party?
+  * How to handle participation of non-EU members.
+  * How to handle multi-ethnic/politically split countries.
+  * Certification and administration procedures for slowly growing the number of participants: What does a Pirate Party have to do to submit people to the euroliquid?
+  * Suitable "no protection" declaration of all data being available/public.
+  * Develop the policies for long-term euroliquid discussion areas: debate on statute amendments and programmatic themes.
+  * Consider long haul policies for longer debates and majority vote options.
+The euroliquid bootstrap process may appear a bit strange at first, but the short term goal is to have several delegates per country, the mid term goal is to have hundreds of Pirates (and large-majority-based decision making) and the long term goal is to one day be able to host all Pirates that are willing to take on the responsability of being a European politician.
+To achieve that we will have to wait for newer versions of the software that allow for weighted voting of participants. Until then we do the weighting by a counted number of participants. We can slowly grow the system into the hundreds of Pirate participants per country and still be weighted by a fair formula that respects big and small countries - and we can decide together when and how to do this. The speed at which we move there depends on the priority all the parties give to it and provide for accreditations of further participants.
 (continue)