I am forwarding this invite to the first ever *Democracy Drinks. *It’s a social meet-up for talking all things public participation, organised by Involve.
When: Tuesday 11 June, from 6pm
Where: Two Chairmen pub (upstairs), 39 Dartmouth St, Westminster, London SW1H 9BP (Nearest Tube: Westminster / St James’s Park)
Since Involve have declared they are not interested in
our innovative, unique App which
helps any number of decision-makers (contributory participation) as well as
any number of those affected by such decisions (interpretive participation) to be
sure their best choice is always made (unity and commitment), and
all in a universally transparent way (public accountability), then
our attendance would be counter-productive. Pity Involve’s ‘decision’ on this matter was not transparent, but that is typical of decision-making in general. As it is, we’re none the wiser, not even better informed. Mistakenly, the ‘accepted wisdom’ seems to be that transparency doesn’t extend to the decision-making process itself. Yet, that is the crux of the matter. And, you’d be surprised how such a methodology would impact on FOI.
What are you talking about Michael? You can’t solve democracy with an app. People change things not gadgets. Attacking involve is not going to build trust in your device.
Pleased to have a reaction, but the thrust of my email was to show there is a better form of democracy to be had not a ‘solution’ to democracy, whatever that is. One based on collaboration, not the conflicting system we tolerate today which seems to be fragmenting into smaller parties and not beginning to address the real difficulties - participation, transparency and accountability. All three involve people, not gadgets.
Kindly note, the App is called “informed Choice - ic!” and your comments would be all the more surprising if they were indeed informed. Perhaps you may care to learn more about this methodology which Professors of Decision Theory have proclaimed to be “ingeniously simple”?
Apologies for delay in responding, but events overcame my best intetions. However, we beg to differ - as, irrefutably, this “controversial” way has at least started the discussion. Whether or not it continues will be a measure of your curiosity.
The “unconstructive, aggressive” comment presumably refers to those made of “Involve” and not the five bullet points (our “promotion”). Furthermore, given that the “Involve” in question is the “think tank” that purports to put “people at the heart of decision-making” (not the employment engagement entity) then please rest assured there is no ‘relationship’. It simply highlights the irony of their purported mission especially in the absence of any better alternative than ic! which, uniquely, does exactly what they are striving for.
If real, OPEN government is to gain traction, then decision-making processes have to be addressed. We contend it should be done in a consensual way, not by perpetuating the conflicts and emotive fog of hyperbole which contribute nothing to improving the quality of decisions. Discoveries abound of the nuggets thrown up by genuine transparency. Disruptive - yes, Positive - yes. Improvement in quality of life - yes. Give peace (consensual solutions) a chance!
