Create like a Context Diagram that identifies the overall goal of OGM and shows inputs from external entities to it and outputs from it to external entities.
I just think of it as “A more improved future!”
What would be the inputs to the overall goal of “Improve the Future”? Where would the “Improved Future” output go to?
Tony, is this a test? I think I’m failing!
@Tony, this is the Site Feedback category, which may not get your post the attention it deserves.
I suggest you ask again in the Designing the System category, and at-mention Jerry, since he is the most knowledgeable about what OGM’s overall goal is.
Sorry for pressing
A few days ago, I looked at the "early deisng questions of one of the first entires to this project. Though not a real ‘mission’ statement, those questions do indicate much about what I think Jerry was hoping for with OGM. I decided to try answer some of those questions to get started, don’t know what happened to that message. Her’s what I suggested:
Jerry: I don’t know if there was a plan to discuss these 'mission questions and statements in more depth. Some of them relate to my explorations about the Global Planning Discourse, and led me to consider some comments or questions; let me know if this is helpful in the further design of the platform.
Suggested Answers to Early Design Questions:
(Selected not in the order listed on the mission page: (I’m not sure I understand some of the questions, so can’t respond to those:
How Can OGM Be Relevant and Useful Right Now?
- By providing a platform for discussion of issues, problems that threaten humanity as a whole, for wide (global) participation leading to needed global decision /recommendation agreements (Many issues must be dealt with by ‘local’ entities.) Usefulness can only be assessed 'after the fact but estimated by the ability of the discourse to lead to meaningful decisions that solve problems without recourse to violence or coercion.
How Can OGM Experiment Messily, Yet Still Have Clarity?
- Many different (‘messy’) experiments, initiatives, theories should be encouraged and supported to be conducted by groups /entities (many already doing that) but their experiences (good AND bad) should be shared for analysis, comparison, evaluation; on the common forum / platform. Proposals for (few, critical and necessary) global acceptance should be discussed and decided upon according to a more orderly (agreed-upon) procedure, with a concisely formatted display ('maps) for clear overview
How Do Business Models Fit into OGM? ⁃
- The overall platform /or forum should be as general as possible, but contain opportunities for participants in specific issue discussions to apply specific ‘special techniques’- such as consulting ‘brand’ techniques provided in a ‘toolkit’ to be used as appropriate to the case at hand. (The platform should provide a ‘toolkit’ collection of special techniques to be used as needed).
How Do We Keep OGM from Being Overrun by Idea Peddlers?
-The platform must have
a) a proposal / idea collection page / file where all ideas are kept and archived for reference regardless of their merit formatting – if a merit evaluation provision is added to the platforms, they will be earning + or - merit points sparately
b) a display showing headings of entires;
c) a page of ‘thorough discussion candidates’ proposals (for actual decisions) They will actually be ‘raised’ for discussion only if they get a significant number of serious comments;
d) separate ‘discourse pages’ for specific ‘accepted’ (raised) topics with different threads as needed
e) for issues the community has agreed should more thoroughly evaluated: a provision for concise display of evaluation aspects drawn form comments (aspects, argument, argument premises) to which all participants can enter judgments (plausibility, probability, goodness…) as appropriate;
f) a tool / procedure for deriving ‘decision criteria’ from the evaluation results.
What Are OGM’s Minimal Needed Handrails (guidelines)?
-This is the subject I discuss under the heeding of ‘procedural agreements’ in my P D S S paper. Such agreements are needed to the extent the issue and participants are aiming at actual decisions (or recommendations to real-life decision-makers) . The process will have provisions for changing these 'rules if necessary, but the conditions for changing them must be accepted in the overall agreements.
My suggestion / hypothesis is that if the platform includes evaluation metro assessment (by the entire ‘community’) that will reduce a ‘trolls’ or otherwise unacceptable participant’s credit account,the less ‘censorship’ rules for moderators to ‘enforce’ will be needed. T(his will have to be tested of course.)
What Is the Plausible Promise That Attracts OGM Participants?
- There are several aspects for this question, the most general being natural curiosity and interest of thoughtful people to explore and discuss important and controversial topics. More specific motivations are, e.g.
a) Depending on the kind of issue (problems in society) being discussed, the overall promise must be that all potentially parties affected by the problem or plan have a demonstrable guarantee that their concerns will be given ‘due consideration’ both in the discussion and in any eventual ‘decision’. (This is why majority ‘voting’, which dismisses al minority concerns, must be replaced by better decision modes).
`b) For planning projects of the ‘wicked’ kind, the needed information about how a problem affects people is ‘distributed’ and not yet documented so if can be ‘researched’: should there be an ‘incentive’ for people who otherwise might remain ‘apathetic’, not cooperating? Could the evaluation results for contributions to the discourse serve this purpose – creating a 'merit points account that could be made fungible in society at large – e.g. as another qualification aspects for jobs or public office positions – (or more?)