 oh and my daughter just just asked me she'd be hearing about this could you please explain it she's in the car racing somewhere and i have like eight minutes to try and explain v taiwan to her she flipped out appropriately okay so are we gonna see you audrey yes um as soon as i'm um fully dressed in something oh excuse me good morning good morning i'm again i'm again literally in bed so oh okay just sincere recording i won't push anything i'm yeah okay yeah so a lot of my questions a lot of these i went went back over my old list of questions so i have stuff i have things there that i've sort of extracted i'm still curious about but a lot of new stuff came from your new york uh your new york tape shiang uh and i'm i'm uh i just took lots of notes during it and i'm i now know enough to get down to the more details and one of the things i'm interested i get this picture from audrey the everybody just so floats in and organizes things and floats out and whatever happens the only thing it could have and it's yeah and uh and that's very intriguing and i love it i love the imagery uh and trying to apply my experiences in open space particularly five-day open spaces which are totally different from one or two day open spaces on and sort of saying how would you actually live that um and then there's all this staff uh staff and interns around audrey and then there's this uh the sense of gov zero is floating around all these things intersect and stuff but i'm just curious because there's a number of times when um you shiang say um we did this so the community did that and i'm going okay well who is we who is the community is there any kind of sense of roles uh that are is there a container like is the staff hold a container of process and support uh and options and you can come talk to them and whatever i mean what who's doing what through all this and then we decided you know when we were finished with the paulist i'm going well what do you mean what do you mean when you're finished with paulist who's who's deciding we're finished with the paulist who's who's inviting these stakeholders which stakeholders are being invited to the conversation i mean what's what's going on there so anything you guys could say that will help clarify all that i would love to yeah so so um a clarifying question would be would you be more keen to to learn about vitae one as of this week or vitae one as of 2015 because this week is more my interest although i am interested in the evolutions and how it came that way but my i'm i'm wanting as i said before i made the mistake of saying and i'll make the same mistake again looking for a place to stand in the quicksand in the river you can never step in the same v taiwan twice i gather so i'm i'm interested in that fact and as it's evolving there's stuff there's things there's some kind of here's where we are sensibility and here's where we what we want to check out or try because of x and y and i'm i just to get a better sense of it because i want to communicate about this in a way that's realistic and i i am not in any way resistant to the constant chain and the hitter of feedback loops and all that sure so let's say that's something that's everything happens doesn't tell anybody what they might do to and i got it but it's it's you guys and the way you look at your scene and interact together and all that which is fundamentally at the core it's not the abc's that you do you are creating the abc's as you go but if there's no abc's there's nothing remotely like what you have could show up anywhere else mm-hmm all right so so why don't shuyang describe a snapshot of the v taiwan meetup this wednesday which is like literally two days ago uh and maybe the week before and and i'll i'll um try to illustrate um in the meanwhile uh and see if uh that helps clarifying things all right yeah so so two days ago on wednesday uh i think because we always book a room um at a certain time friend on afternoon two to evening so um so two days ago we kind of started from three o'clock around three four ish uh we booked open kitchen um inside the social innovation lab and i remember i wanted to work on something um you know i gave up my friends there to kind of work on a vehicle that supposed to carry a camera around so people online over uh also wanting to participate in v taiwan could participate with a livestream video and they can have a control to to the vehicle which is carrying um carrying the the the camera so i invite some friends i consider as makers and i ask them if they can help and so that was uh two days ago and there are some other people from different backgrounds like two other researchers working on observing open government scene in taiwan and there are um people who are uh they are to discuss about um the current issue that is launched on v taiwan about data privacy and um just people kind of just gather together and chat whenever they want and there's also a friend who is making a startup and she really need help for for some brainstorming sessions so she were here and kind of grab us whenever we have like five minutes to put a postage to her wall so yeah so that was last week uh that was two days ago and last week um there's some and also also the p.o's came right yeah also the p.o's came yeah you're from ministry of uh transportation and communication they they came they just came they weren't there wasn't an an issue they were responding to or something they just came because they're part of this coming and going community and see what happens kind of that's exactly right yeah she she's here to share the the birthday cake of our court reporter our stenographer one day so so so people came for for her birthday cake i think it's the general idea there you go again it's an open space so she can actually make a cake open kitchen and that's lots of fun talking about the fun you have don't you Audrey that's right that's right and and yeah the data integration um excuse i mean the topic is currently at the snowballing stakeholder um stage uh so data integration we have a topic we're not data integration totally yeah we're not totally topicless yeah and is that somehow all the people are involved or that is a that was some kind of formal invitation sent out to people saying if you'd like to come talk about the data integration we're going to be here and people know oh that's the that's the big thing anything can happen around the edges but that's the big thing or what does it mean that that's the topic number the snowballing survey was finalized last week and so we have a url uh to the snowballing survey uh so it was co-edited last week actually no she don't got everybody drunk and uh brought them to to dinner last week uh and lisa and i remained to finish the the questionnaire um so it's actually two spaces last week um but but before they were drunk they were very contributed uh i think uh anyway so this is the context the context of the snowballing survey i the only part i've seen a reference to that is in the asking stakeholders who else should be involved kind of but i don't know that that's right that's exactly right so if you go to vita right now um so the the front page says data integration we have a we're having a snowballing survey and what happened then you have you have these slides uh prepared by um some um actually a law firm the Guo Ju law firm explaining the current situation challenges and whatever around data integration and open data uh and data governance in the current uh administration and there's no snowballing survey um i think it's this link uh and uh it starts by you're already at the stage of getting getting a stakeholder right and it starts by explaining what data is what uh anonymization is what encryption means uh you know all these uh small lexicons uh to define a key concept and it begins saying have you ever requested data from the administration uh and if you have uh do you do it for you know um the citizen supervising purposes academic purposes commercial purposes other public interests or whatever right and you can choose as many as you like and then it starts saying you know but what um what have you requested or are you looking to request next and if you have been refused before or you haven't that's the lucky option um whether it's because of its confidential its private data um there's no rule for providing it or there is rules prohibiting it and if yes what uh and um we have a currently a platform to request more data do you think the platform is good enough uh and the benefits and whatever so it's a rolling survey because because at the end of this survey which is rather long um we we ask people to identify most stakeholders uh and provide their email if possible um and if not well at least um you know their names and we'll try to find their emails uh and here is the snowballing part and very interestingly actually uh it's actually it's actually a survey about your relationship to this issue exactly and and we the name is optional yeah the name of the person filling in is optional because people may want to anonymously fill in this the email is also optional the results um the results of the survey is a sense of what's going on in this field in this on this issue at this time kind of uh and then it's rolling it's snowballing because you're getting more and more people who are theoretically interested in this topic have an interest in this topic yes and and the final question is do you agree to receive more emails uh if we have more rolling snowball surveys like this one and so of course we sent it to everybody who have previously agreed um on previous questionnaires like this and we send it out to all the different communities uh that's the people um are associated in the open data taiwan group the zero group the whatever group um so that's people's contribution before they get really drunk last week yeah i'll have to digest that for i'm gonna ask more questions but i have an overview i i understand the strategic placement of the getting drunk but there are some real uh issues going real real topics we are discussing in the in the v taiwan hackathon and it just it's there and we can like before last week we were discussing about how to formulate the questionnaire and before that we probably were discussing about and goes to to look at this this issue and this this issue surfaced from somebody saying at some point we really need a thing on this topic and other people going yeah that's a good idea and a bunch of people get together and they start working on it that's exactly right there was a petition from like five six people um in the yeah in the v taiwan um well only one of them are actually irregular in v taiwan community the other ones are uh from the wider group zero community from the open data alliance there's one running for uh the counselor now actually uh solpeng but he used to work in the ministry of economy affairs uh and so they say is a diverse bunch of people all want more data integration uh who raised this subject so the the again i'm trying to understand the pattern here so the the petition is posted on the v taiwan site somewhere there's a space for putting up petitions and then people sign sign sign sign sign and a petition you know people notice that a lot of we have 20 people sign this now let's get together and talk about what we're going to do about it or what's what's the line for petitions showing up there's there's infinite lines of petition that the easiest one the easiest one is just to show up in wednesday during my office hour and talk to me right so so the office hour um just takes one person you don't need 20 person it's not online you just come and visit me right so so that's the the the fast tracks okay stop there stop there okay sure yes the fast stream go talk to audrey so you've talked to audrey and audrey says oh good idea why don't you do x or audrey says i'll take it and post it where i mean what happens you're petitioning you the king oh king here's my petition and audrey does what why would they come to you well in all fairness they can also petition to the prime minister who is also touring around the taiwan the same way i do so so it's not just me who are doing this office hour thing the prime minister is doing this same anyway um so so people are petitioning because they they understand that uh we'll have a complete transcript made of whatever material they talk to you right while they talk to me and this will be useful because that's what the we have a community will use to um to to elicit people's interest uh in talking about it or to determine whether it's not interesting um and they're taking their conversation with you which has a link to it and they send it to their friends and whatever there's a networking thing that happens and people notice notice it and then start to get together to act on it right and uh and um in this particular case the data integration petition actually happened at national open data advisory council which is a council of experts on open data and so on is advisory and i'm not a chair the chair is another minister with the portfolio who also insists that all the open data related consultation meetings are published in full in in in transcript and so so that also results in a transcript uh alternatively people can go to join the gov that tw which is a place where uh people who has more than five thousand petitions will always get a response but actually if they're what the petition is of uh high political interest like the the mac uh text filing system uh is explosively difficult to use then we actually make a response when it's 50 people not five thousand people uh but but the point here is that we always get the petition goes and posts is posted there and people various people are checking out the petitions and signing this one or that one and that's right depending on what the what the dynamics around itself is right a lot of a lot of numbers a few numbers will get a response right and and here is the where pios come in because pios interview always the petitioner here because in the in the office hour in the national open data council it's a face-to-face meeting with very high bandwidth and very uh from understanding of what's going on and we're making a transcript of it but in the written petition enjoying gov there is no such uh high bandwidth we just have you know five five hundred words to work with so the pios always arrange for someone to interview the petitioner um so so that it results in the transcript uh yeah they they always interview as a rule when it reaches five thousand but for cases that are really interesting to the pio themselves they may arrange interview well before the pio or the other people in their ministry um the responsibilities in the pio pio may delegate to other people in the ministry uh huh so the head of the ministry doesn't necessarily decided that the petition this petition is worthy and tell the pio go interview them it's more the pio is just that's their job is yeah pios pios extremely autonomous they just look at it and say we we got to handle this one okay thank you i have a few steps here awesome anything you would like to ask right yeah yeah i think it's it's clear that the pios can choose any any subjects actually not only from join website also like they can they can just bring up any issues they think that's um it'll be nice to discuss with their broader network of people from uh maybe from the people they could they could couldn't even imagine to to talk with from the beginning so if there's any place uh in their ministries and then they feel like okay they want to interface with more people oftentimes they can um they actually can bring up in the in the monthly pio meetings and we also do a transcript from that and um it's possible to be brought up to to retell one as well yeah so so transitional justice um the the committee for transitional justice is a new member in the cabinet that we're going to have in a couple months and they will take on things like um on our coins and bills uh there are um the figures of Chiang Kai-shek and do we want the figures of Chiang Kai-shek to remain on our bills and coins so very soon we will have a new pio from the transitional justice committee and i'm sure that they won't wait for five thousand people to petition to to bring this for discussion and the central election committee also has a pio already but they have not finished building the national referendum act electronic system and once it's there of course i i expect that things will surface i'll try that platform too so the pio function is one of the uh accelerators or attention enhancers points of initiative in the system uh i'm trying to see if everybody if if when you look at how something comes into be at any given point in the system any decision is made if everybody is always totally equal in that or if there are points where initiative initiative is expected or is institutionalized uh and this is an example the kind of thing even though i understand there's nobody stopping anybody from interviewing anybody and posting it you know there are there are certain things which which uh yeah it could be great order emergent out of order out of all this yeah it could be pio who made the initiative um because like for example today's pio also came to vtaiwan hackathon but for vtaiwan's uh context anyone can take the initiative to to um to say to bring up an idea of launching a case and if there's only the only requirement is to have um account also from the government side so meaning every issue has to to uh has to have uh both common commitment from the society side and also the government side to be able to launch on the vtaiwan's platform oh that's interesting the requirement because we need to be able to communicate between the two okay and the pios are the point people for the government side they could be uh but for some cases um it's some other people uh like the national development council the ndc people are also um oh yeah i forgot to mention ndc has also its own platform the the law that ndc uh platform where people can have petitions but it's more like they pinpoint the parts of regulation that are out of date uh as regarding to technical or technological progress so law that ndc is uh what we call the platform economy um regulation so the platform economy regulation the platform economy adjustment uh regulation is a regulation which i used to start to to denominator here uh is a process in which that anyone can propose a platform economy case and say that the current law um is currently in gray area in this and the law that ndc people uh will make sure that it's uh deliberated um both within the government and also with the civil society so the platform economy regulation is one of the empowering regulations and in which case the pios are not necessarily involved the ndc can just become the government contact and then ask for civil society by the way the platform economy regulation is one of the product of the vetoing process so it's right again the what do you call it the public the coming the coming around what i'm losing my words already uh the we not recreat regressive repressive recursive recursive thank you recursive public recursive dynamics okay well that's a new dimension i hadn't seen before so any basically from civil society any that anybody can play that role from the government of particular positions that play that role because the particular parts of the government or people like the pios okay uh huh thank you well that's so then there comes the process itself as you get in you have you i i gather the the creation of the educational materials for what we might call briefing materials here uh is a i'm i'm assuming that that's sort of an open space open source anybody can put their two cents in and you have a you have some some structure that can make sense of that where a lot of people dump stuff the information in and then somebody sorts it out or is it like a weekend yeah what is how's that unfold and when when do you know the process is done and ready to go on to the next step um so that's two questions actually so shuyang may want to handle that the first one how is the the xiao zi dien and jian pao and inform informative materials done mostly uh it's um in the so we always say vita one community actually means whoever is kind of having an account in vita one's platform and also uh who have interests to participate in the vita one hackathons and so on so it's actually a very brutal community and probably we have around thousands people right now but they are they have the status and identity they are specific identities that have associated themselves with vita one yes yes they're on this like channel for example okay yeah so people bring their skills like um there'll be people who are good at translating more difficult law technologies to uh easier to understand description so those people will be will take the lead to to to make open dictionary and we call it show okay and they are volunteering for specific roles or they have said i'm interested in doing this it's nobody's contact that's exactly right yes yeah and also um probably people who are in charge of the the case in the ministries especially public servants who have been working on this case for for a long time and understand the regulation very well and they will be helping they'll help out to put out the slides so there'll be um the slides trying to describe what the issue is about and um people who are good at um for some of the design can try to make the slides more um with a better presentation um and maybe sometimes we we also make a logo logo for that sometimes we make a tagline just for um the viewers of vita one's website to understand not only not only a name of the case but also a tagline to understand so what this issue is actually about and what other controversial points people can probably start to look at from the beginning so it actually does that there's a sense of parallel to wikipedia i mean it's an urgent an emergent organization but it is an organization people have roles and there's certain kinds of lines of communication that are and wikipedia there's ways of tagging things so that they show up and somebody particular can attend to that pieces puzzle whatever right the current status is we um we we know to launch a to launch a case on vita one's website we probably need the dictionary we need the the slides we need a name and tagline and some description and to fulfill all of that we just make few cons i think that's in the last video already described by our con right so so um we just kind of make these all um own requirements to just to to launch the vita one case as different cons and ask people if they want to join and and help out okay and your the symbols you're showing me are different roles that people have in the system that get that they choose which label they want that's right so these are the standard of zero stickers from actually two years ago there's many more stickers now but but that's the usual stickers somebody can have six stickers and i'm interested in participating in these six ways kind of that's that's that's exactly right and so so this is to to dig a a come for other people's fall in i guess and this is to volunteer to fill a a gap that somebody has identified i think these two are the most important oh wait no there's nobody one is the most important uh so in that's where you are right right exactly exactly so so yes yeah and and as as ryan said um for for a vita one case to be published uh we need to have a title um preferably english and in chinese and we need to have pictures pretty pictures and we need to have a summary which is a few lines um and we need to have slides uh and we need to have a small lexicon uh and we need to have some timeline um and we can have a lot of other supporting materials but these are the essentials it's funny i think about the pattern language martin and i put together and a lot of these i would be i would love to have a community of practice on a pattern language where this kind of organization happened and the patterns would emerge with all those things attached to them uh anyway so all this is happening bustling along weeks months go by uh fuller and fuller there's more and more people adding more and more stuff and where does it stop or does it not stop somebody just decides let's we have enough to start with they can continue on developing what we're going to do to start the next step right so to to start a snowball rolling uh usually we have people on slack on the mailing lists uh in face-to-face meetings um and in quite a few um ways to to signal their comfortableness or uncomfortableness of of going on and um once we have a general sense of rough consensus usually in a um weekly meeting uh at the end of the meeting when people feel it's generally okay for both people online and offline then we will publish it we won't publish it if anyone uh identify any blocking issue with it which would just say okay i would spend another week on it so it's a very very slowly convergent process so the weekly meeting has people who are doing who are involved in significant roles in this together uh and they're like looking at where are we where are we where are we where are we and then it sort of emerges one time people are going huh okay feels like now's a good time to move on the weekly meeting is mostly the people who are who are involved in doing this particular process okay and who are excellent pushers who will enlist people who are more qualified than they are if it requires um other expertise shuyang is an expert in this so part of so so it's not just that they were participating but they're going to be participating in the next stage also and their ability to network out and reach people this is important is how how ready the informational material is mm-hmm yes and find facilitators for it which is necessary for the next stage find facilitators for what who will facilitate a face-to-face meeting uh making a digestion of the snowballing survey oh okay so i'm i'm imagining i haven't had imagined a um polis thing in here after the after the snowballing but you're saying that that may happen if we reach let's say a few hundred people that we think okay polis is warranted okay so so if there's okay now i'm understanding your thing about it being efficient uh so there's going to be some kind of our reflection on what has unfolded and what they could unfold through the rolling survey i had i had the rolling survey as something that is used to identify stakeholders and that it is it is one of the processes but you're also gathering information in the survey yes so the serve the information of from the survey is going to be given to a number of the stakeholders for a face-to-face or there's going to be if there's lots of people there's going to be a polis and the results of the polis will be given to a bunch of stakeholders that's exactly right yes okay so there's like those two separate right so identifies the stakes and the holders right uh identifies the stakes and the holders huh interesting way to put it okay so when when is it decided to do the face-to-face and who decides that and again anyone can throw up a live stream but usually to get community support you will need a new true facilitator so at any time at any time you have the uh you're doing the survey and the results are kind of being compiled as you go there's not a stopping point for it because we have to check in every few days to snowball it uh-huh so this is where we've gotten to this is where we've gotten to this is where we've gotten to and any time along that where somebody goes I feel we have enough for me and the stakeholders I have in mind to go ahead and do a interview or do a non-interview a facilitated conversation I talked to my friend Joe and he's a facilitator and he's going to facilitate that and I I'm going to pick seven people out of this and pull them in and we're going to have a conversation and that could happen 17 times you know it's all grist for the mill and more times the better kind of it's not for for the social enterprise case that literally happened 17 times okay so it's not like there's going to be the stakeholder conversation which is somehow decisive these all these things are kind of overlapping and with the and again anybody can do it okay I could see how it's organized to allow that anybody can do it and anybody can view it this is a way for people in the public or the government to take action in the ways that are you provide a whole pile of ways to take reflect on this issue and try and make decisions and all the rest and you just sort of yes and seriously the the only thing we ask in return is for the facilitator to be somehow known to the to the community ideally coming to the weekly hackathon but it can also happen in the remote fashion and like in the social enterprise case there are things that are held by by at the MP actually MP Karen Yu but she's holding it in the capacity as a social entrepreneur herself she was one of the pioneers of fair trade coffee in in Taiwan and so she held this stakeholder meeting and again all the VTL community asked in return is that for them to relinquish copyright to a degree so that we can include this in the VTL website and circulate it and use it as material for a next-stage celebration okay so and there's no it's not like there are standards that are required in order to either facilitate or convene a conversation but part of the transparency is this is the nature of the person who facilitated it this is the nature of the person who convened it these are the stakeholders that were there and people can pass their own judgments on what's most dependable you're just providing space for people to do these and presumably people who aren't being paid attention to because they're incompetent will ultimately drop out getting anything out of it that's right that's right and because every week we review what has been happening in the stakeholder communities if they need a facilitator or need they need facilitating technologies uh the technologists including communication technologists um also have their own I would say workshops or collaborations for example Shuyang knows about this this person who came a lot in the previous weekly meetings Haichen is now working on a technological tool that lets people look at official documents like pdf files and identify the points pro and con to it and automatically surface them into a mind map and that works pretty well in other technical tools that we're working on that kind of take the police idea clusters but drew down to the relationship between the issues identified as well as potential solutions as well as the potential stakeholder who can provide the solutions it's called issue-based mapping and so there's going to be workshops in the sense team and the IBM team are going to co-create the tools using concrete cases of course but working more on the tool level that's an example the expansion of the tool set that gov zero is always kind of poking around in and trying out yes so that's the design part in it that you export and the tools just sort of appear and get talked about and after a while they start getting used more and more and that's the evolution of the of the system and if it's proprietary then we try to railroad the creator to open source it yeah exactly well it's already open source we're we're now trying to to connect the railroad to a central dispatch right so in any case yes but otherwise if it's open source to begin with like sense or like IBM then it makes it easier for people to integrate this into a behind process yeah i think it's interesting when projects in merge uh when projects merge like when when the sense sense that is of a team came to uh IBM team and because i think both teams are kind of in in in lack of some resources the other team actually has yeah so it's complementary to it also makes sense to to merge and and talk about what are possibilities of course we can create something together and work more different versions afterwards but it's really good to have this kind of collaboration between different fields i can understand it at a sort of theoretical level but i have never been in a a geek group doing this kind of thing i can sort of feel what it's like and go wow i mean it's definitely a growing evolving ecosystem and i know ecosystems well enough to go okay this is what's happening here well well but you can think of it's like the chinese uh wikipedia article on acupuncture being pulled into the english article on acupuncture and they have different viewpoints on the same thing and they have to merge its conflicts but it ends up being a better article on acupuncture which is by the way my first contribution to wikipedia so okay um there's something it's just dancing i wish i had more sleep to be able to be more uh more zippy in my responses but i'm i'm getting the maybe maybe kind of share some feeling also when i when i joined uh look up zero before like you come over some more questions you know i have i have a lot of questions but there's some questions sort of popping to my mind and then fade into the yeah yeah but i have ones written too to ask but go ahead and um part of me knows you can stay on a little bit longer right shia yeah i can i can stay on until known before my launch meeting but yeah okay and we're gonna she has one one hour more than i have yeah okay so part of me wants to make sure i'm getting whatever i can from church right before he goes uh so i think you give me a sec to look um i got what that is uh okay i've got what that is it's funny how well you covered all this uh you have yeah i would like to uh poke you know that it's i it was a breakthrough for me to sort of see the parallels to wikipedia which again i haven't engaged in detail but i have dived into the background community a number of times and seen the complexity and sophistication of how it self-organizes and uh so i'm i see that as a parallel uh yeah then there is the talking to taiwan which i gather is just one of the many players that can convene a conversation yes they're the film people yeah they decide they decide who they want to interview and win and all that it's not it's not as if they are the key players they're just and they're a group they're just in the group they're not an official channel you know organized like a business or something they're just a group of people who have certain copies of material and they just yeah yeah at the end of day they're they're just a a loosely coupled team with a bunch of slack channels and a crowdfunding website that has some amount of money and and that's it uh and they they have managed to garner particular attention but that's just because they garnered particular attention they don't have any consensus well yeah i'd say that's because they have excellent um designers their website looks really really pretty uh and um the content is released under a creative common license which enables the connection to polis and to the italic community right right okay you say the outcome of the conversation can then be used to make a draft bill is there a group that a group within on v taiwan that does a let's translate this all this material into a draft bill yeah yeah um that's something that's done by by legislature officers so again my answer is the same as last time it depends on whether it's a regulation or it's a law uh and the process differs slightly um if it is a regulation um usually um the ministry will have the final say of how it looks like and so the government's points of contact here uh will be actually the primary people translating the consensus points into regulation and going back to the taiwan in the draft stage for another round of direct feedback including the name of the regulation the platform economy regulation was used to call the sharing economy regulation but during one of the consultation meetings everybody hated that name so it's now platform economy regulation but on v taiwan the url is still sharing economy so yeah because we can't change the url very easily and in any case um so so that kind of dynamic um this cross feeding dynamic uh happens well into the draft stage for regulations is what i'm saying um but if it's a law um ultimately we depend on the parliament and so um we more consciously include mps in the process in the hope that the mps will know the context of the drafting stage but we will not always uh write the legal text um as suggestions for the mps we may translate it into a little bit more uh clarity a little bit more coherency uh but at the end of the day um the the actual text is between the demonstration and the uh the parliamentarians okay so you're basically playing a role of briefing the parliamentarians on here's what a lot of people think and here's a lot of the issues that are involved here's what they think should be done over to you yes it doesn't have the same feedback loop to see the theos have yeah because once once it's in the parliament of course they may hold public hearings and so on but the the community or the committed ministry officials can just be summoned there right we're not agenda status uh in the parliament okay so that's that's one of the interesting places because one of my there's ways in which one of the images narratives metaphors i use is of you guys creating a demonstration parallel government not one that necessarily is is implementing things but the decision making dimensions of of government you say we can do this that's what it's a part of the story of the sunflower movement was that you guys demonstrated you could do it better than the part is a demo it's a demo yeah and that that's an ongoing thing and there's a way in which in some contexts where the government was not particularly receptive but there was a lot of grassroots energy to try something like this it could be sold to uh grassroots supporters as we're gonna show that we can do this even better than the government to pull it off and the government may or might not listen to it at all but there may be some some ambitious politicians who recognize a a wave to ride when they see it and say hey we're gonna pledge to do what the the people say uh and and that gradually infects the government that way uh yeah so so this this happens um in the 2016 um um the people's um judicial reform movement uh and we really want billy here but i can do a pale imitation of him uh so we have uh billy lean uh ling yu chang who who wears many hats uh he is uh one of the pete's colleagues um but also every time irregular but also leader of the people's judicial reform movement uh 2016 but also advisor to the official presidential people presidential judicial reform forum uh a year afterwards uh he's also founder of the social democracy party uh one of the co-founders so he wears many hats um but in in in any case um so the the pjr started by the judicial reform uh association um and is a grassroots totally button up no government binding power whatsoever uh way to apply the v taiwan process uh to the ideas of judicial reform to increase trust between um people and the judicial system by uh deliberating things like um citizens jury and uh we don't have a jury system by the way uh and many other possible innovations so it is just applying this uh but it's not uh broadly speaking it's not um listed on the v taiwan platform uh they use the v taiwan discussion forum uh for one aspect of it but um it has its own website and its own branding and everything uh and but it really resulted in a demonstration uh to the presidential office that this process is feasible and so uh then the same process uh adapted a little bit um is then um becoming the has then became uh the justice the president that g o b dot p w which is the um the presidents um take um the same process and which is binding by the way this is another so this is another um uh example piloting prototyping something and because it works successfully and there's a mixture of public support plus you know and pressure plus the willingness of politicians to go along with it suddenly a version of it is taken up and adopted by the government that's exactly right yes and and it in itself as an example of v taiwan was modeling something and they picked up that to adapt to their their kind of scene and then their kind of scene was picked up and adapted by the government so there's a whole evolutionary you know pollination pollination kind of activity yeah yes cross pollination and and all that and the the the folks who did the electronic platform for the presidential version of this uh is called uh watch out uh and the the watch out group um is again very fluid organization the watch out engineers the the three watch out engineers and designers was part of the original v taiwan team in its original version uh who did the initial version of the website and and everything uh and now watch out um has um for example yo chihao as a designer who again from time to time uh come to v taiwan meetings and get drunk uh but officially they are also also the vendor uh to uh take on cases like the presidential judicial reform process the john hasham memorial form uh memorial hall reform process and other processes so they're a vendor a social enterprise ish organization that's um institutions that sells this to institutions and again we have very close but not formal relationship with lots of watch out folks i have this funny impression that within the last couple of days somebody was communicating to me from watch out and i didn't recognize it and threw it in the trash and i'll have to go dig around my trash so you find out what it was i recognize them so uh shuyang talked about challenges at the end of your presentation shuyang i don't know if that's something you want to uh address with audrey curious what what's the content of those four items that you put out yeah audrey knows on my side i think we we talk about how to challenge some current status and how we can uh we could possibly improve v taiwan from from now on um a lot of very uh flexible recurring system already um so it actually depends on what kind of uh what are different types of people and what are different skills we have in the community um but there are some uh some bully points probably we pulled out that they can describe the challenge of v taiwan right now and we'd like to kind of attract people who can help us on that will be uh to attract more um more um to attract more more people in a sense of people with different different um um dynamics in their skill sets to participate in v taiwan's uh process so in terms of there are different cases different uh issues launched on the v taiwan website but sometimes we need to have a different kind of mindset to help us out on uh reformatting the slides or um have a different look on the open dictionary so it would be nice to have people from different backgrounds to participate as well so how to how to increase the um participation on the process and also on the comments of every issue on v taiwan's case so there's there's different branches of participation i'm sensing that some of it are the the people who are part of the uh the geek skill skill community of the people who are actually creating the platform for people to engage in these different ways on and you would like to have diverse skill sets in that and then there's a question of increasing the people who use those platforms as you know as stakeholders or public you know ordinary public citizens who come and you want to have have more numbers and more diversity of those right yeah yeah all of that yeah we want to try all of them and and when we talk about stakeholders we actually are thinking um not not really so much about the the the uh quantity of the stakeholders but actually um dynamic stakeholders so if there's an issue we can interface more stakeholders from different uh let's say different different groups different backgrounds then then that's very good enough instead of having four thousand people from the same background and talk about the same the the the thing is that a snowball works better if um if it starts from the parlor sites in the opinion um right groups so that the snowball would work like this but if we just start from the these corners then we don't actually reach that much people from the other right but there are yeah there's many different ways to cut the pie as they say i mean there's functional roles that people have in the dynamics of the system when people say the whole system get the whole system in the room they're usually looking at the different functional parts of how things are unfolding then there's perspectives opinions uh you know people are for against this or that that's a different kind of diversity and then there's demographic diversity there's all these different kinds of diversity to uh you can deal with and in my general theory is i think you already know uh audrey is the the sense of diversity whatever kind of diversity you use if you can have some way of having it interact uh creatively you'll end up with something better than you started it wasn't brown so i understand having but i'm curious also because i'm my roots are more in the you know one person one vote kind of democracy a sense that we're all equal citizens which is a very it doesn't use diversity in a sophisticated way it's just saying you know do you have the right to participate are you a member of the community uh and then you are stuck into a process which uses you as one one data point in the whole thing kind of uh and i'm curious to what extent i know you have the sense of stakeholders and i'm fascinated by your division of the stake and the whole the stake as the here are the issues involved the interests involved and then there's the holders of the stake the people who are identified with one part of that or not which i think is a really interesting way i've never cut the part before uh stakeholders are usually in the uh in the circles that i go in uh people who have an explicit interest they're they will be impacted in a in a way that they're very aware of the outcome of whatever the issue is and that they either they or representatives of them like representatives of the union are there as that piece of the system uh the fact is everybody is a stakeholder in everything but they're just not self aware self-defined and organized in that way exactly they're not networked you know yes and there's something when working with the um multi-sector multi-stakeholder emerging governance group that i'm part of uh i learned that this ordinary citizen perspective is place-based you know you are a citizen of a place and that that's the way the society is organized with govern you know the mayor or the president or whoever and the legislature at a particular level of place so i i'm sensing all the time that stakeholders is who you're looking to engage both in your information generation and in your evaluation of that information uh and the public in general doesn't show up in a visible explicit way and i don't know if that's part of your whole approach or if you're trying to expand that you'd really your idea would be everybody in taiwan is involved in policies on every issue that's raised whatever i don't know if that's a if that would be an ideal at a theory level or that's not even an ideal you just don't operate that way and you don't the public as an abstraction you're not really interested in you're really interested in the diversity of stakeholders well um the the thing the thing is that if if people don't know they're not you know well informed uh as of their relation all right their stake in this uh topic um they're they're of course they may be interested in learning about it and we do engage uh like all our materials can be thought as you know a introductory material on civics uh around public issues right um but at the end of the day uh when we ask all the ministry to publish all its um yearly plans monthly plans their kpi's their procurements their whatever um a common platform what we're looking at is not people who um do a meaningful vote or referendum on it we're asking people who are interested in it to ask clarifying questions if they have one to have a real-time dialogue with public servants to engage in organization themselves in order to discover their stake and so on and so what i'm getting at is that um there is no abstract public if that's what you're asking about there are individual citizens who may not be aware that they are related to this issue in some way and there's many people in the v-titan community and especially the watch out group talk to taiwan and the other more media-oriented people who are trying to connect people's attention to their stake um so at the end of day uh we're not the referendum platform but um the community is to my knowledge very willing to help to coalesce um the the concerns before any referendum so people can have informed choice before the referendum happens but we have no ambition to become the referendum uh platform uh there are there are other things that i think you are i'm pretty sure you're already familiar with which are based on the on the in uh individual citizen the individual citizen body considered collectively which is usually the public refers to uh and i'll get to that in a sec but i realized in this conversation uh any given agency or whatever has a um uh has a group of stakeholders around whatever kinds of decisions it's making but there's also the issue the fact that the resources that most governments work with are taxes that are theoretically paid equally by all the citizens so you're the money that goes into government is governed by tax laws and the money that comes out of government is then filtered out through these different stake channels uh and it feels like that's um and it's not just budget it's that there's there's some theoretical value in the will of the public as to the general direction of where we're going as a city as a society whatever and the idea of the the sortition thing applied at that level it's like you have your citizen jury not in the judicial sense but in the Jefferson center kind of sense about some public issue uh or the wisdom council jim ruff's you know random selection and then we're going to talk we're going to talk together as randomly selected members of the community we aren't we aren't in any of these categories we may be we're not being convened for that reason for being to be a generic member of the community and to look at what the community needs and come to some kind of agreement about that the effort a lot of my work has been an effort to generate a legitimate wise voice of the collective public what's involved in doing that i keep i keep looking for connections i have tremendous respect for all that you're doing uh in terms of its potential wisdom generating you know garnering covering the ground to what needs to be covered is just very very powerful much more powerful than a citizen jury could ever do but there's still this there's a um you know francis more le pay you know her no sorry francis francis more le pay okay la ppe yeah most most famous for her first book which is called diet for a small planet oh yeah yes yes she since went on to democracy as a major focus uh first it was development policy and then it was democracy and she created a whole theory of democracy and in it she talks about the relationship between citizens and experts and citizens are experts on the values of the community uh okay the whole community it's like what do we value where do we want to go what is important to us and from a cognitive science perspective you can't make a decision without wanting something you can use all the rationality and science you want they can clarify everything about all these issues and options but you can't decide unless you actually want something which is not a rational thing it's a simple that's what you want uh and so the idea in the in the democracy and frankie's version of democracy it's like the citizens are basically there to articulate an act on the values of the community and the everyday experience of ordinary people that's what they're in and then the experts talk to help are supposed to ideally say the experts are on tap not on top the experts are supposed to help the citizens figure out how to actually achieve where their values are pointing how to go in that direction given the complexity of the real world you know you can you can if you're ignorant you can push in a particular direction you think is going to work for you and make all kinds of messes and you actually get the opposite of what you want so the experts are there to help the citizens understand what's really out here how do we go about actually getting where you want to go so that's the division the job division and i sense there's something you're sort of mostly centered at the people who know there's a there's a heavy gravity towards that and there's people who know in diverse ways and you're trying to engage all that uh but the generic citizen is is not in the pool and part of me i think i wrote that in the first paper part of me it would kind of imagine a scene where there was like a a wisdom council an annual wisdom council for taiwan or whatever which said this is where our attention is the things we're longing for and then that somehow plays into what happens in your existence situation that's an influence that shapes how people are thinking about all yeah but but i mean people who come to the office hours either the taipei ones or the regional ones that i happens every other tuesday they're they're ordinary citizens right but the sense of having a having a motivation to show up certainly yeah no i'm thinking of having a there's a different identity well what i've from what i've heard so far the people who show up have a specific interest in something they well not not really i mean i mean functions holding a function right right so so street yes but but i think um that's why we have this town hall style dialogues um in the in the collaborative meeting process you see the experts are learning from each other's diverse fields in this small room but on the larger room or on the across the internet on the live stream there's thousands of people watching and it costs them nothing really to pull out their phone and start watching or it costs them just a little bit to walk to a local town hall and watch the live streaming with me as the anchor um explaining the moves by the experts and so there there is a second tear of involvement that really depends on the aesthetics that's where the filming the the live streaming crew came seeing as long as long as we format it so it's it's interesting lots of people will watch it like any other tv show and this is a interactive tv show so the opinions they sent the the messages they send on slide though and on chat rooms are then filtered into the live stream expert meeting so different from in it's different in kind from something to take as an it's not an ideal necessarily but as a exemplary a perfect example of the we the people voice is randomly selecting people and then having them come to a consensus of some kind is a different ocean than having people watch I should I should mention that the junk cash in memorial hall deliberation is a more sortation kind of citizens council they use random random selection and ensure a balance in gender in age group in ethnicity in whatever what is that is proportional um so the junk cash check um scenario workshops are um about this building in Taipei in central Taipei called the junk cash in memorial hall uh and um it is uh placed with very high controversy um there are many people who think of junk cash in a very positive way and many people who think of junk cash in a very negative way and um sometimes it's very mixed uh and so um what to do with the memorial hall uh becomes a a controversy and so the ministry of kocha used this kind of citizen council uh but they don't have the the power to randomly poll um anyone in taiwan so it ends up being an a open application process through face-to-face um counters or over email or over google form whatever and so but they do get sufficient population so they can have a fair um poll and representation uh statistically speaking and they run many many uh scenario planning workshops uh with plenty of informed time and plenty of small group time and so on all according to the textbook uh about about the cks thing and um the fact that most of the facilitators overlap with the vtaiwan community at some point is not a coincidence but but it but because the process as you said is completely different philosophically uh that case is not listed on vtaiwan nor we will say it's a vtaiwan project right well i'm it's one of the things i'm i'm glad i got clear on and i have an ongoing an ongoing inquiry into the relationship between the stakeholder way of cutting the pie and the citizen public way of cutting the pie and i'm getting rapidly engaged between the engagement with you and the engagement with the emerging network governance initiative i'm rapidly learning how to think about this um but i'm still intrigued it feels like there's a potential synergy and there's a funny way in which because the parliament is elected there's a way they can like you say you don't have the influence on parliament that you have on the ministries and it feels like the connection to the we the people public kind of thing would give more leverage over parliament too because that's your elected parliament right i i do agree i do agree and and i'm going to the parliament to talk about one possible merger between the two models as part of the digital communication act so uh i have to go and shuyang we'll carry on and send me the recording okay absolutely fascinating okay hopefully she'll she'll tell me what he's gonna say anyway bye bye okay yeah thanks all right wow so i'll be happy to stay for another 30 to 40 minutes okay and yeah it's pretty it's yeah for me it's a lot of learning also from aldry so yeah i'm glad wow what a privilege you got yeah i think quite privileged it's a good opportunity to be to work with many amazing people yeah so adria is going to be a witness to the parliamentary hearing of some kind or yeah she's going to the parliament meeting so she in the parliament period she attends the meeting every week and yeah many will be just sitting there and using her computer and checking what's going on and trying to participate in in a very limited way because actually she couldn't be answering questions from the MPs so she'll be there to kind of understand the situation over there but yeah yeah so i think we we are are we still um um discussing about um i don't know if you have you have more questions you want to you want to no i i do but i'm i'm curious i'm since we're at this point i'm curious what she was talking about integrating the some kind of integration between um between what you're doing in parliament i'm wondering what is what is that piece of the puzzle can you describe a bit of that or yeah i'm not sure if there's a i'm not sure if i can describe the whole piece i think a very limited observation a little tape but i from um i think the the storyline will be from uh we are doing this experiment actually called vtai one right we're trying to experiment an open consultation model um from this public private uh space which is it's because vtai one is public found by private operate by the community um but there let's also connect to the last slide the last slides when we talk about if we should institution institutionalize vtai one in a way if the participation from the government side or from the citizens side should be regulated so actually we're talking about if um if there should be a regulation to talk about um the the government should provide the platform that is um open for the citizens to be involved in policy making process and if that is the case we are kind of regulating um the the government's involvement to to to have conversation with citizens on the policy making process so uh so you can you can see that if you're familiar with the fork and merge uh um uh idea from gov zero's community to the gov government's government's organization right now we did we did a lot of uh in the gov zero community did a lot of uh forking projects to to to a community and then when they create some kind of better experience website or uh projects the government sometimes merge it back and i think vtai one is experiments also from gov zero to try to prototype a open consultation process and if the government in the end is interested in merging this process back and writing a regulation around it um then we are we meaning then the the government is trying to institutionalize vtai one so there's actually a regulation called uh national communication regulation the digital communication digital communication regulation is actually writing that the government should um provide a platform just inspired by vtai one um and that provides a platform for for for citizen participation so i think ultra was talking about that and um and that's still still in the parliament we were not sure um if it's gonna pass or not but we're really looking forward to to have that because that means um we are having this vtai one experiment in the in the public private site but also having a merging back um version uh in in the government as well that's a funny i can feel trade offs you know the word trade offs yeah uh the sense of the if the government is going to make a policy regulation you know a law about something it has a certain solidity to it uh and what's one of the most powerful things about vtai one is it's liquidity you know it's like it flows and changes all the time yeah yeah you can't you can't uh you can't you can't have guidelines but you can't have here's abc the the government's going to want to do an abc and you're not an abc you're you're the river if this law is this regulation is going to take few months to pass and we can't really uh expect the government will run vtai one as fluid as vtai one's cumulancy so i do think it's important to have both uh forks both regulation and the vtai one experiment uh living at the same time if you can have a somehow have the uh and a review say an annual review of the policy whatever policy the government makes about this have it include review of the policy every year by a public participation process or by a vtai one process uh so that it has a chance to evolve even though it's going to be evolving in a more jerky step-by-step way rather than in the flow way that you guys have having something in the law that says how that law is going to be reviewed and changed would be valuable every year every month every week every week that's a whole another thing if you got you guys just reviewed it anyway yeah we um i i just had this conversation with uh eric gordon from emerson's college um about this um uh its vision of having a play form provided by the the government no matter what form it will it will be in the future and to have this vtai one kind of open consultation process and he was arguing if we should really that this recursive public running this recursive process so rapidly should it be a month a day or a week or yeah part of what i got yeah you're if you make it official then it has to have some periodicity but you guys don't have anything like that it's always there's there's certain rhythms but there's there are overlapping rhythms and they have different different uh some some of the rhythms of your work go like this is some of the rhythms of your work go and with more slower kinds of things that's all it's not of course yeah there are different policies they should go in different reasons and it also makes sense to have this community or yeah um this uh yeah you mentioned abstract public and there's also another term called mini public i'm very curious on what's the difference you think around these two terms mini public and and abstract public oh the abstract public is a pure abstraction it's like the public well it's like public opinion polls this is what the public thinks and a mini public is a is a specific form of public engagement which is a on usually randomly selected sometimes scientifically demographically balanced uh group of people who deliberate in some form on a specific public issue that's a mini public that's a within the world of deliberative democracy that phrase mini public means that kind of of forum makes of diverse of people who's who could represent uh the the public yeah there there are cross what's called cross section right you know a microcosm of the macrocosm a small version of the larger public since you can't you can't like you guys know you can't facilitate millions of people but you could facilitate a small group of dozens or hundreds of people uh and have them come up with something and then you would assume that that was something like what you get if you did the same process with all those people and everybody in the society yeah um yeah yeah i think polystate helped us to uh kind of facilitate more people than one person could um but how how would you write with taiwan's community in this public uh term um well i don't see uh the the organizing principle or the organizing um i don't know what the right word for it is uh the way v taiwan cuts up the pie of the population in its effort to have you know consultation is by the the standard stakeholder uh and stakeholder has to do with one's i one's relationship to the issue yeah uh and it's always different stakeholders yes uh and in the public it's more your identity with the community of place you know there's the yeah the general public is everybody in a country and then usually you can have the the uh the citizen or the citizens of the town who are the or the electorate i guess you could say electorate because the elections are organized by you know community levels levels of place-based organization you know here in the united states you have a city or town and you have the county and you have the we actually we actually didn't um uh limit people from other countries to participate in with taiwan actually there's so many international people we count as a community as well there's a way in which that makes sense if your focus is on diversity you know because the diversity having having the more perspectives you can integrate the more you cover the ground that needs to be covered yeah if you were to have all the people who are not taiwanese be the people who are defining what happened in taiwan that wouldn't make sense but including people aren't taiwanese into the discussions of taiwan would make sense because they bring new perspectives yeah that's true oh we always have taiwanese people so right i know that's right so from my i i tend to be biased towards diversity but i haven't attended to stakeholder up until the last year i haven't really looked carefully at what all the stakeholder collaborations and stuff that are going around have to do with the we the people voice which is sort of in the us we have this we the people things petition yeah yeah it's in the the constitution we the people of the united states blah blah blah oh yeah so that's a that's a meme that is that is part of our culture uh and so i have been thinking okay well we the people is behaving you know stupidly at best if not insanely right now so how could you help we the people collectively be wise that's been my inquiry uh and now i'm extending that because part one of the definitions of democracy is that the people who are affected by a decision are participate in making it and that's much more of a stakeholder perspective so i'm now really interested in what's happening in the world of stakeholder stuff and what you're doing is definitely that but i still have my roots in this other frame of reference and i'm because diversity because diversity is a resource for better decisions i'm interested in how the those two frames of reference which are very different fit together and yeah it is it is very different i'm also very new to to to this process of uh implementing or making um democracy in in taiwan and for me it's it's really important to like like what i think very similar to what you're doing but i'm trying to understand our definition to to what democracy is actually about and um what kind of democracy is it direct or is it digital or is it fluid democracy we're trying to to achieve in the end and the different powers from different kinds of technology we could use most of the kinds that you've named have at their center voting you know if you're liquid democracy you get to delegate your vote to somebody else you know if your direct democracy you get to vote on every every policy that's being made so there's different but for me voting is such a low compared to deliberation voting is a very low participation form it's a it's a yeah it's a low form of participation it's a low form of collective intelligence right part of what's so amazing about paul s is it is generating wisdom out of voting there's no interaction people talking together in paul s itself you have you have people talking together before and after paul s but paul is itself you don't have any back and forth nuance let me take into consideration what you're thinking you just have do i agree or disagree with us you know right yeah out of that you generated consensus and i look at i go what the fuck's going on there it's interesting you look at because the voting ways to just to connect different comments and uh it's actually possible to divide not only yes and no or i don't know three options two more options so there could be a scale of seven or ten options in the end that's something i i one of my questions was what would happen if you had a you know minus five to plus five scale that you voted on yeah what are the what are the things that would be good about that what are the things that would be problematic about that i don't know how to think at that level i've got that that we're you're making clusters of groups of shared belief kind of and then you're looking for among these diverse communities of shared belief what do they all agree on that that's just a brilliant shit i love that and i don't know maybe come too complex they have shades of agreement how does the algorithm deal with that i don't know yes i think it's just the the fertility of these consensus will be different if we have more scales on the vote because when i look at police algorithm it's more like it's exactly um the same logic behind networks when people are watching videos movies on the internet and if like i watch the same set of videos as you do then we probably will be categorizing the same group on police so you can you can if you can think in in that analogy um and uh for me if i vote or if i the the the the measurement of i watch a video um and uh could be could be just on and off i watch or i don't watch um but it could also be i watch for like 20 minutes i in the video watching and so on so the algorithm will just more delicate on um shaping these consensus on what video to to present to you or what kind of consensus you are going to be attached to um in in the sense so i i don't think it makes sense but also depends on what how if it's really necessary for for us to to have low that fidelity of consensus um on every issue yeah maybe maybe i would think um see one of one of my one of the things i have concluded without having enough evidence to really conclude it is that there's two kinds of consensus that paulus facilitates one is a and if i knew chinese i could evaluate this better because i could look at that some of the actual results but one is a a very shallow consensus that avoids the kinds of things that cause people to be conflicted you know everybody should have a right to breathe well of course everybody's going to say that you know who's going to say you don't have a right to breathe you know so that's a shallow consensus and then there's the person who has a brilliant idea that nobody else thought of that happens to cover more ground than anything anybody on any of the science thought of and is simple enough to recognize that fact and that could surface in a paulus in a paulus exercise and that's a more wise deeper kind of consensus right what i'm used to in terms of consensus is largely based on concerns you know here's my proposal and and people go oh yeah let's do that and then the solitaire goes so does anybody have any concerns about this this is it's related to the what's your the rough consensus idea which has a whole categorizing of what kind of concerns are legitimate on the block consensus in which art etc but the whole idea of concerns when you have a concern it means there's something you're not taking into account and my when when well some of the group's not taking something into account it's a member of the group has a concern and then do you have do you take the time to try to take that into account and part of my theory of shared wisdom is the more the better you do that job of trying to take into account differences and disturbances the more ground you're going to cover and the wiser your decision is going to be but you can't necessarily in all circumstances take that kind of time so ideas like rough consensus are help us navigate that challenge but when I look at polis one of my instant things with polis there's here's the agreements here's the disagreements you end up with something that is 90 percent of the people on both sides of the two major disagreement camps like this item but there's still some people who have concerns about it right don't like it those people if you could talk to those people and say what are your concerns and have teams of people who work specifically trying to figure out how to address those concerns right you could increase the percentage of agreement around that item and make it more wise so that's part of how i would love to use i would love to use of course yeah that sounds really cool because the i i i'm also in contact with the development team with polis right now and i think they're making a new visualization which actually has i think has that that feature um because it in you can lay out all the comments um on the polis conversation and um in alone alone uh a scale that is um the the consensus level so we can one end that's like super consensus comment comment that has super consensus a really good consensus and on the other end will be the very controversial comments so you can of course go through all the comments that that has um that that that is part of the consensus but also if you have time you can also go through more comments that has controversial points there is yeah there's the um in what i sent did you see that 10 page thing that i sent to audrey yeah yeah before the first conversation and there's a using concerns section on the eighth page that i talk about the different things that could be done with polis and about a a game an online game talk about designing for fun uh it's a mixture of competition and cooperation and you get uh you have you you take an issue and you get to pick the issue you want to work on and you are part of a team and the the algorithm of the game helps you decide how how diverse a team do you want to be a member of do you want to be a member of a team that basically believes like you do or would you like to be a member of a team that's like really different and you get more points the more diverse the team is that you're on the more points you get for succeeding in coming to agreement and so you are in the way i designed it which i don't know i have a feeling there's a polis version of this it would be even simpler than what i'm thinking of in my design you have okay you have 10 people on a team and they're all different and they each write a little statement of how they would solve whatever the problem is whatever the issue is and then they do can they share their concerns about each other's statements right and then their job is to collectively try and handle those concerns and come up with an agreement that covers all their concerns and of course the more different they are the more hard more difficult that is and so the more different you are and the greater level of agreement you come to both of those give you points and your team gets points for coming up with if you and you get 10 000 points if your team is the most diverse the algorithm can possibly design and you come up with 100 agreement and then your solution is posted in the larger in the larger field of participants in the gaming this gaming community and other people can give you points for how good your solution is and all that and i was suggesting that as a there's a billionaire in the us who's created a a thing called brigade which is a way for people to talk about issues and organize to advocate them and i was thinking of this as a a game that is attached to the brigade citizenship software and ideas which get successfully from which come out as winning ideas in the game would move over into brigade to organize for actually advocating them and getting used how do you know brigade b-r-i-g-a-d-e it's a military term for a level of military organization but in the political world it's like you're organizing your brigade to fight in the in the political world for your favorite idea but i was trying to say let's try and let's try and privilege ideas that are actually wiser than other ideas and we can make a game it's a serious game but it's still a game you are in competitions more like olympics there's a deliberative i haven't thought of framing it as a deliberative olympics but it could be nice yeah we're we're coming up with this uh this new project um we're still looking for people in place to to to work on that it's called holopolis it's kind of using polis library so we are now trying to run a polis server um locally and uh pull pull out some data some uh data we we we had uh like from from for example we have the data of uber's conversation for like unmanned vehicle conversation and so on so we can um use those data and apis from polis to kind of create a new experience and now we're thinking to make it in the vr environment but we it could be just a fun games uh in any place huh i can't even envision what that would be but i i one of the other questions was what would it be like to have a comment section attached to every item that shows up in polis so like wikipedia you have each wikipedia page has a discussion section attached to it automatically even if nobody's done anything with it what would it be like to have a discussion page a discussion dimension of each item when you put an item in not only the people vote yes or no but there's also a whole discussion that can unfold on it people might read the discussion before they vote their yes or no right right that's important that that's what is sense the project called sense the tbl tw already mentioned uh nargo so um it's about it's i think i think it's more like a study group uh online all together for people to read different materials and and highlight uh poison cons online and so we can we can share our um perspective when perspectives when we read uh similar documents so they'll give a rough understanding on different issues so imagine we launch an issue and there will be um we'll ask this database with people's readings and notes already ready over there and say we key the issue say um then vehicle and anything around this topic um any kind of reading materials notes comments thoughts um comments on social medias and so on we'll be ready there as a big big package of um background materials start with you want to work on this issue here's a lot of stuff to work with kind of is that where you but i would one of the things that the way we think of pros and cons comes out of the adversarial debate system and i want to highlight the fact that concerns is an example of something that is not part of debate logic a concern is an invitation to figure out how to deal with a concern whereas pro and con is which do you have more pros and fewer cons let's do it if there's more pros and cons it's a a trade-off kind of thing rather than let's figure it out and make it better so in the system where you're planning to put pros and cons that's fine but i would say have a place for concerns and things to address those concerns of course of course that's my suggestion for losses thank you yeah i'll tell a sense team yeah i'm not sure if they yeah they do have pros and cons but what i think is very valuable is about collaborating correct collaboratively coming up with the um kind of shared notes around different around this issue you think that that's part of what's they're planning on anyway is somewhere in there is having a people working figure out a way to yeah i think it's important to figure out how people work together even especially collaborative and especially in online space because we don't always live in the same place yeah part of one of the definitions i've had for collective intelligence for standards i've had for collective intelligence which doesn't doesn't fit the policy experience as it's currently organized is that what comes out of it is something that women in the room came in with and that is better than anything anybody came in the room with in in in a in any kind of conversation interaction discussion deliberation is what you come up with at the end as a group better than anything anybody came into the group with yeah yeah yeah and what happens in Paulus is the best things that somebody comes in the room with get picked for their consensus value but there's no there's nothing to redesign any of those things so that they're even better than they were before uh yeah yeah very right but that can't happen in a subsequent discussion that's part of what the saving grace of Paulus in the context of v taiwan is that there's all this discussion before and after the the Paulus exercise happens the Paulus just helps focus things yeah we we're we observed some um user's behavior when they use Paulus they tend to rewrite comments in their own way so i think there will be one like example to to think of collective intelligence but of course it's not really designed they don't have to rewrite all the people's comment right right but they're saying that when somebody sees the comment they can disagree with and they tend to there's some people who will disagree with it and then submit a comment that handles their disagreement yeah exactly it happens in uber's case very uh it's very obviously you can see many comments like that people you can see two very controversial groups from taxi drivers and uber or poor uber or against uber and yeah you'll see some people who come up and try to merge these two size comment into one comment which were more neutral we can say in a way and try to get more votes more likes yeah so in that way thank you yeah that's that's right that's very much in a deliberative conversation people are individually saying their peace in an effort to address what other people are saying so that is in fact a deliberative conversation yeah i'm not sure if it's actually because of they in the beginning in the interface they don't have much to to read about they probably will go through the social media and so on but they could actually go through all the different comments and try to think of their comments and maybe because the all the materials they are looking at is it's from these two different two very controversial groups and when they tend to when they write they tend to write a comment that is more neutral and try to get agreement with both sides so i think that's a very beautiful um user scenario when they were in the beginning four different groups on the police visualization and then merged to two and then merged to like two overlapped with one major consensus uh right that's that raises two other issues i had about paul's questions i had right is when went what what decides what the person who's going to say agree or disagree sees do they have the list of comments and they pick one and they say i want to say disagree or disagree with this or do they get randomly thrown up a comment that the system says okay here's a comment for you to vote on here's a comment for you to vote on and you don't see all the comments you just see the one in front of you that the system gives you uh is the system random or is it is it pushing up comments that haven't been voted on so much or what what decides which comment i'm going to see in order to vote on it yeah that's really important and i think they changed the agreement throughout the past few months um but i can for sure check with the developers there um but the the statistics shows um most people vote for 20 comments and and these and only very people really interested will vote for more than 20 so it's really important to know what other first 20 comments were shown to the users and uh there are some priorities um but comes in turns so we don't really the police people don't police team don't really um push all the new comments to the first 20 to users um but there are some priorities like the comments who uh which is uh created for example created by people who voted more uh the comments who uh comments which is a new comment uh for example and uh maybe the comment that has more um imbalanced voting is either very controversial maybe many people just agree with that many people disagree with that will be will be also shown up more but there there's a okay and i'm not sure because i think they they thought about it and they try to make there are some behind vision or behind um ideal conversation they want to achieve so in order to to do that i do think intensively about what comments comes first but okay so they've been thinking about these different dimensions and trying to weave them into the algorithm right yeah i was thinking that the people who voted who gave comments later would be disadvantaged and they're trying to counter that with part of their algorithm more like inclusiveness and they will be trying to figure out the controversial uh controversial comments i was wondering if the consensus comment shows up if you track the cons the consensus comment over time does it drift in and out of consensus uh and i don't have no idea but it just occurred to me that would be possible consensus is the consensus gets stronger and stronger and more solid or it's it's like 80 percent of both sides like it and sort of stays there 100 people vote a thousand people vote it's still the same or just go 80 70 60 100 you know 100 blah blah but dances back and forth i don't know yeah we can blend a little with them but what i know also is they they don't look at the comments but they also try to figure out the uh the persona behind those comments so now they're sliding in some questions when people vote so not only the plenty comments they they have to vote but also they can vote but also there'll be some questions asking what gender you are what age you are around what kind of people what kind of background you're working with and and so on so so those those questions they gather i think will be useful to kind of input their algorithm in the end huh there's a lot you have to go soon i know too but i just remembered another there's another methodology called um uh oh what is it synonym but it's spelled s y n a n i m uh and i was years ago i talked to the guy who started it before he became you know put it into private you know private use but it had part of its logic was it was it had groups of 10 people who are doing proposals and then reading each other's proposals and then revising their proposals and reading each other's proposals and it was it was noting in that cycle who in the group tended to be be chosen you know oh that's right when you after they everybody write a proposal they'd have everybody would have to pick one of the proposals to revise so the software is watching whose proposal is most our most people choosing to revise that's one thing it's watching and then they're watching whose proposal does each person choose to revise so and out of those two dimensions they are seeing whose mind seems to reflect the group's mind you know okay you know the the ideal person would be the person who always chooses the proposal everybody else chooses and their proposal is the one everybody else chooses so that person has the most points and the group mind and if they have a thousand people working in on on whatever the question is then they can in groups all in groups of tens they will pick those people who are the most reflected the group mind for a next level of groups you know one person from each group and that's the person who's picked from each group and i feel like there's something like that that uh that you that the polis could do yeah noted who's who is voting most like other people and and studying that person's yeah responses anyway i i think your time is practically up our time is practically up yeah thank you so much for for your time it's just really well conversation i maybe i can yeah i will i'll try to read more and maybe i i think soon i will try to arrange another call with you to ask you more questions we can we can answer in email or we can even arrange another call it's are are you going to be in seattle by any chance uh no no i i'm not coming this year uh not yeah i'm coming to new york to i'm hoping to be in seattle to see audrey while i'm there but next week i'm hoping to have another call like this audrey says the week or two after that won't be able to do it but your friday my thursday on next week i'll be here at the same time it's fun having you involved in it i would love to have you also if you if you can yeah i'll try my best to to be part of this interesting long conversation and i will watch this video again get myself sorted out and have a new set of questions yeah also so i i remember you mentioned some uh maybe some suggestions you want to send to polis team and if that's because i would probably do that as well okay yeah i would again i don't if you look at the that page seven or eight whatever it was and the thing that i sent the 10 page thing it has my thoughts there but as usual i would love to be in conversation with them which i may when i go up there in the end of april to talk with audrey i mean he's going to be visiting with them i may have a chance to talk with them also in that time but i'm more i'm more interested in seeing what comes out of the discussion that wasn't there at the start so yeah we're going to do some experiment on that yeah we'll let you update it also thank you thank you so much okay um please miss myself bye bye