Open source governance: differenze tra le versioni

Versione delle 17:05, 17 mar 2011

Versione attuale delle 13:54, 11 giu 2024

(19 versioni intermedie di 14 utenti non mostrate)

Riga 1:

{{T|inglese|politica|marzo 2011}}

L''''[[Open source]] governance''' è un [[pensiero politico]] che sostiene l'applicazione della filosofia dell'[[open source]] e dell'[[open content]] alla [[democrazia]] permettendo una partecipazione attiva di tutti i cittadini alla creazione delle leggi, come in una [[wiki]]. La [[legislazione]] è in questo modo democraticamente aperta a tutta la cittadinanza, permettendo a tutti di accedere nel modo più [[trasparenza (società)|trasparente]] possibile al processo di costruzione delle decisioni della [[politica pubblica]], che beneficierebbe dell'[[intelligenza collettiva]] di tutta la cittadinanza.

Le teorie su come organizzare tale tipo di governo sono molto varie e più o meno sperimentate, tuttavia, numerosi progetti molto diversi fra loro collaborano fra loro nel progetto '''Metagovernment'''.<ref>[{{Cita web |url=http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Active_projects |titolo=Metagovernment Member projects] |accesso=16 marzo 2011 |urlarchivio=https://web.archive.org/web/20150628081107/http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Active_projects |dataarchivio=28 giugno 2015 |urlmorto=sì }}</ref>

== Applicazioni dei principi dell'open source ==

Nella pratica, numerose applicazioni di questo tipo di governance sono state sviluppate nei paesi sviluppati:

* l'uso di meccanismi di [[open government]] fra cui quelli per l'impiego e la partecipazione pubblica alle decisioni, attraverso software come [[IdeaScale]], [[Google Moderator]], [[Semantic MediaWiki]], dai governi - specialmente nenel l[[Regno Unito]] e negli [[Stati Uniti]], specialmente grazie alla spinta di [[Barack Obama]]

* forum di [[politica pubblica]], puntualmente [[wiki]]s, dove le questioni politiche e le argomentazioni vengono dibattute, sia con la presenza di [[partiti politici]] sia senza, prendendo in genere tre forme distinte:

** Piattaforme di consultazione interne ad un partito politico, in cui attraverso un forum il partito attraverso gli interventi dei suoi sostenitori definisce una linea politica, a volte veri e propri [[think tank]]. Esistono varianti apartitiche di questi think tank divenute comuni in Canada, come {{Collegamento interrotto|1=[http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com The Globe and Mail / Dominion Institute policywiki] |data=novembre 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot }}.

** Forme di [[Citizen journalism]] che documenta l'attività di vari [[think tank]] e di tutti coloro che hanno ruoli fondamentali nel dirigere l'[[opinione pubblica]], come [[SourceWatch]].

** Meccanismi di '''Open party''' in cui il partito è guidato totalmente da un forum di politica pubblica, che non ha funzione consultiva - nessuna di queste forme di partito hanno mai raggiunto alcuna rappresentanza in alcun [[sistema parlamentare]] nel mondo.

* Meccanismi ibridi che cercano di fornire contemporaneamente meccanismi di giornalismo partecipativo, sviluppo di indirizzi politici e trasparenza su un'organizzazione politica. [[Daily Kos|Dkosopedia]] è l'esempio più noto.

Alcuni modelli sono significativamente più sofisticati di una semplice wiki, incorporando [[tag (metadato)|tag]]s semantiche, strutture di controllo per mediare le dispute, anche se questo in molti casi rischia di dare troppo peso ai moderatori all'interno del sistema, fallendo nella creazione di un sistema partecipativo.

<!--

== Common and simultaneous policy ==

== Note ==

Advocates of these approaches often, by analogy to code, argue for a "central codebase" in the form of a set of policies that are maintained in a public registry and that are ''infinitely reproducible''. "[[Distribution (business)|Distributions]]" of this policy-base are released (periodically or dynamically) for use in localities, which can apply "patches" to customize them for their own use. Localities are also able to cease subscribing to the central policy-base and "fork" it or adopt someone else's policy-base. In effect, the government stems from emergent cooperation and self-correction among members of a community. As the policies are put into practice in a number of localities, problems and issues are identified and solved, and where appropriate communicated back to the core. These goals for instance were cited often during the [[Green Party of Canada]]'s experiments with open political platform development. As one of over a hundred national [[Green Party]] entities worldwide and the ability to co-ordinate policy among provincial and municipal equivalents within Canada, it was in a good position to maintain just such a central repository of policy, despite being legally separate from those other entities.

Because so much information must be gathered for the overall decision-making process to succeed, however, technology access becomes a pre-requisite to participation. General adoption of tools such as wikis provide important forces leading to the type of empowerment needed for participation in this kind of government, especially those technological tools that enable community narratives and correspond to the [[accretion (science)|accretion]] of knowledge. Prior to the adoption of such tools, however, it's unlikely that the general public would accept their output and outcomes as fully representative of the public's will. Accordingly [[representative democracy]] remains a mediator and moderator of the results, and most citizen-authored legislation remains advisory.

== Open politics as a distinct theory ==

The '''open politics''' theory, a narrow application of '''open source governance''', combines aspects of the [[free software]] and [[open content]] movements, promoting [[decision making]] methods claimed to be more open, less antagonistic, and more capable of determining what is in the [[public interest]] with respect to [[public policy]] issues. It takes special care for instance to deal with equity differences, geographic constraints, defamation versus free political speech, accountability to persons affected by decisions, and the actual standing law and institutions of a jurisdiction. There is also far more focus on compiling actual positions taken by real entities than developing theoretical "best" answers or "solutions". One example, [http://discoursedb.org DiscourseDB], simply lists articles pro and con a given position without organizing their argument or evidence in any way.

While some interpret it as an example of "[[open source politics]]", open politics is not a top-down theory but a set of best practices from [[citizen journalism]], [[participatory democracy]] and [[deliberative democracy]], informed by [[e-democracy]] and [[netroots]] experiments, applying [[argumentation framework]] for [[issue-based argument]] as they evolved in academic and military use through the 1980s to present. Some variants of it draw on the theory of [[scientific method]] and [[market method]]s, including [[prediction market]]s and [[anticipatory democracy]].

Its advocates often engage in legal lobbying and advocacy to directly change laws in the way of the broader application of the technology, e.g. opposing [[political libel]] cases in Canada, fighting [[libel chill]] generally, and calling for clarification of privacy and human rights law especially as they relate to [[citizen journalism]]. They are less focused on tools although the [[semantic mediawiki]] and [[tikiwiki]] platforms seem to be generally favored above all others.

===Criteria===

Open politics can be reduced to a list of criteria:

*anyone can participate, including anonymously. This is easily implemented by having a central registrar similar to DNS registrars that can ensure that nobody registers an alias more than once and black-listing their real name. Public key infrastructure already exists for this, however the open source community has not designated(or found) a central authority that can be trusted to sign keys and protect anonymity. Currently, a web of trust system is implemented wherein people sign the key of someone they trust and use the honor system which relies on individuals to revoke their own key if it gets compromised or they change names.

*all participants are equals, and resolve disputes via [[equal power relationship]]s. This is easily implemented by instituting [[egalitarian]] principles and [[consensus decision making]]. It would need to be written into the articles of inception.

*all actions are transparent, and no one has more power to review them than anyone else. This is easily implemented with a planner/manager policy similar to the one in B.F. Skinner's book "[[Walden Two]]" and online/public publication of everything. It would need to be written into the articles of inception or membership agreement that members must work as a planner, manager, and worker on a rotating basis or as needed. There would also need to be a recall mechanism.

*all contributions are recorded and preserved, and these records cannot be altered. This is easily implemented with svn.

*all deliberation is structured, or can be put in structured form to resolve disputes. This is easily implemented with forums and moderators.

*all content is re/organized and [[refactor]]ed by participants. This is easily implemented using svn, each community has their own fork/branch or else uses the trunk as a starting point and forks from there.

*partisan behavior is limited by the format, rules set by factions themselves, and laws extant in the society or community which will be affected by the political decision. This is easily implemented using svn.

*control of the forum can, at least in theory, pass to the most trusted users, not the ones who started the forum. This would need to be written into the articles of inception or membership agreement as a recall mechanism, voluntary self-nomination for control, and democratically(or by consensus) elected controllers/moderators.

Some experts{{Who|date=February 2011}} apply strict criteria of democracy, rootedness, legality, equality of access, and even ecological integrity, so as to ensure that there are absolutely no rights lost in moving [[polity]] into an online arena. In other words, they wish to expand participation to mobile and remote persons, including disadvantaged ones, and undo some of the inequities inherent in using electronic media. This can be accomplished by using open source software and having a browser interface compatible with GNU accessibility standards and mobile devices.

==Underlying preferences and ideals==

Underlying all such criteria in turn are ideals and preferences that resemble those of other democratic political movements:

*[[decentralization]] of authority: giving the widest and most potent franchise to citizens is thought to minimize what economists call the [[principal-agent problem]], or the tendency for managers to abuse authority.

*centralization of information: the use of [[information technology]] to facilitate communication challenges is key to the practicality of the process.

*[[equality of opportunity]]: anyone can participate in deliberation, with the expectation that people themselves select to participate on issues in which they have the greatest stake, expertise or both. Open politics treats the expert and the citizen as equals, implying that the experts are obliged to convince the citizens directly, rather than using representatives as intermediaries/brokers of policy. This use of [[peer review]] is emphasized as the best method to determine what is true or good (with the understanding that this should change over time).

*encouraging diversity of thought, such that multiple positions and [[argument]]s are created, refined and compared; usually the more the better, provided they are succinct.

Some theorists describe the ideals as similar to [[libertarian]] and [[green politics]] with the emphasis on peer review and [[scientific method]] within [[political science]]. However, the idea that political science could apply [[falsificationism]] is controversial, and despite an invitation to contradict and counter arguments, the rigorous application of scientific method is not part of every open politics service.

==History==

Open politics theory grew from earlier work in [[online deliberation]] and [[deliberative democracy]], which in turn drew on research in [[issue-based argument]] and early [[hypertext]] and [[computer-supported collaboration]] research of the early 1980s.

The "Imagine Halifax" project was designed to create a citizens' forum for elections in [[Halifax Urban Area|Halifax, Nova Scotia]] in fall 2004. Founded by the widow of the late [[Tooker Gomberg]], a notable advocate of combining [[direct action]] with open politics methods, IH brought a few dozen activists together to compile a platform (using live meetings and email and [[seedwiki]] followup). When it became clear that candidates could not all endorse all elements of the platform, it was then turned into questions for candidates in the election. The best ideas from candidates were combined with the best from activists - the final scores reflected a combination of convergence and originality. In contrast to most such questionnaires, it was easier for candidates to excel by contributing original thought than by simply agreeing. One high scorer, [[Andrew Younger]], had not been involved with the project originally but was elected and appeared on TV with project leader [[Martin Willison]]. The project had not only changed its original goal from a partisan platform to a citizen questionnaire, but it had recruited a previously uninvolved candidate to its cause during the election. A key output of this effort was a [[glossary]] of about 100 keywords relevant to municipal laws.

The 2004–05 [[Green Party of Canada Living Platform]] was a much more planned and designed effort at open politics. As it prepared itself for an electoral breakthrough in the [[Canadian federal election, 2004|2004 federal election]], the [[Green Party of Canada]] began to compile citizen, member and expert opinions in preparation of its platform. During the election, it gathered input even from [[Internet troll]]s including supporters of other parties, with no major problems: [[anonymity]] was respected and comments remained intact if they were within the terms of use at all. Despite, or perhaps because of, its early success, it was derailed by [[Jim Harris (politician)|Jim Harris]], the party's leader, when he discovered that it was a threat to his status as a [[party boss]]. The [[Living Platform]] split off as another service entirely out of GPC control and eventually evolved into [[openpolitics.ca]] and a service to promote wiki usage among citizens and political groups.

The [[Liberal Party of Canada]] also attempted [http://www.liberal.ca/renewal_e.aspx a deep policy renewal effort] in conjunction with its leadership race in 2006. While candidates in that race, notably [[Carolyn Bennett]], [[Stéphane Dion]] and [[Michael Ignatieff]], all made efforts to facilitate web-threaded policy-driven conversations between supporters, all failed to create lateral relationships and thus also failed to contribute much to the policy renewal effort. -->

==Voci correlate==

*[[Consensus government]]

*[[Democrazia diretta]]

*[[E-democracy]]

*[[e-government]]

*[[Votazione elettronica]] — Referring to both electronic means of casting a vote and electronic means of counting votes.

*[[Government 2.0]]

*[[Collaborative e-democracy]]

*[[Open content]]

*[[Open Government Initiative]]

*[[Open Voting Consortium]]

*[[Panarchismo]]

*[[Poliarchia]]

==Note==

<references/>

== Voci correlate ==

* [[Consensus government]]

* [[Democrazia diretta]]

* [[E-democracy]]

* [[e-government]]

* [[Votazione elettronica]] — Ad indicare le tecnologie elettroniche e informatiche finalizzate a permettere sia l'espressione del [[Voto (elezione)|voto]] che il conteggio delle preferenze.

* [[Government 2.0]]

* [[Collaborative e-democracy]]

* [[Open content]]

* [[Open Government Initiative]]

* [[Open Voting Consortium]]

* [[Panarchismo]]

* [[Poliarchia]]

== Collegamenti esterni ==

=== Siti di argomento generale ===

* [httphttps://www.archive.org/details/LibreCultureMeditationsOnFreeCulture Libre Culture: Meditations on Free Culture.] Berry, D. M & Moss, G. (2008). Canada: Pygmalion Books. PDF

* [httphttps://efficasync.blogspot.com/2007/07/programming-deliberative-direct.html Programming a direct-democracy], a 2007 article on Efficasync. A Method of Open-Source Self-Governance

* [[Us Now]] - A film project about the power of mass collaboration, government and the Internet.

* [httphttps://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10753 Open Source Democracy] by Douglas Rushkoff, 2004

* What's Wrong With Politics and Can Technology Do Anything To Fix It? by Mitchell Kapor, October 7, 2004

* Berry, D M.& Moss, Giles (2006). Free and Open-Source Software: Opening and Democratising e-Government's Black Box. Information Polity Volume 11. (1). pp. 21–34

=== Progetti di open source governance ===

* [http://www.metagovernment.org/ Metagovernment] — An umbrella group of numerous open source governance projects; now using the term [https://web.archive.org/web/20110722131515/http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Collaborative_governance collaborative governance]

** [httphttps://wwwweb.archive.org/web/20150628080935/http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects Related projects] — An extensive list of projects around the world, most of which are building platforms of open source governance.

* [http://aktivdemokrati.se Aktivdemokrati] (Swedish) — Direct democratic party, running for the parliament of Sweden.

* [http://www.democracylab.org DemocracyLab] — A Portland Oregon based nonprofit organization seeking to connect the values people hold to their positions on issues and the policies they advocate. Currently partnering with the [http://www.oregon150.org Oregon 150 Project] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920045632/http://www.oregon150.org/ |date=20 settembre 2018 }} to help high school students create a collaborative vision for Oregon's future.

* [httphttps://wwwweb.archive.org/web/20141217232429/http://openpolitics.es/ Open Politics], Spanish Open Politics

* [http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht Votorola] — Software for building consensus and reaching decisions on local, national and global levels.

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110208125531/http://www.whitehouse2.org/ White House 2] - Crowdsources the U.S. agenda, "imagining how the White House might work if it was run completely democratically by thousands of people on the internet."

* [httphttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicracy Wikicracy], developing a Mediawiki-based platform respecting most of Open politics criteria

===Iniziative governative===

*[http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wiki Future Melbourne] — A wiki-based collaborative environment for developing Melbourne's 10 year plan, which, during public consultation periods, enables the public to edit the plan with the same editing rights as city personnel and councilors.

*[http://wiki.policeact.govt.nz/ New Zealand Police Act Review] — A wiki used to solicit public commentary during the public consultation period of the acts review.

=== Iniziative governative ===

* [http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wiki Future Melbourne] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200314042751/http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wiki/view/FMPlan |date=14 marzo 2020 }} — A wiki-based collaborative environment for developing Melbourne's 10 year plan, which, during public consultation periods, enables the public to edit the plan with the same editing rights as city personnel and councilors.

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080410175829/http://wiki.policeact.govt.nz/ New Zealand Police Act Review] — A wiki used to solicit public commentary during the public consultation period of the acts review.

{{Democrazia}}

{{portale|politica}}

[[Categoria:Contenuti aperti]]

[[Categoria:Democrazia]]

[[en:Open source governance]]

[[fi:Avoin politiikka]]