Loomio、審議、動民主

時間 time: 2015/12/9 19:00 - 21:30

地點 location:Appier Cafe 台北市信義區基隆路一段394號1樓 

主辦 host:OCF 開放文化基金會

報名 registration:http://ocftw.kktix.cc/events/blulu

錄影:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFuYOsppHDrnsqfUhKAs9tFkqyCVIoaSy

19:00 - 19:30 報到

19:30 - 19:40 開場 opening

19:40 - 20:10 Benjamin Knight (網路時代自行組織民主) and Richard Bartlett (What is Enspiral英文講稿)

20:10 - 20:30 呂家華:blulu 量表:審議概念篇 投影片,授權CC BY-NC講者會後感言

20:30 - 21:00 藍一婷:blulu 量表:網路工具篇 投影片含中文講稿,授權 CC BY-NC (英文版講稿見下方翻譯區)、講者會後感言

21:10 - 21:30 lightning talk

現場文字記錄暨中英翻譯區 Transcript and Translation

Clkao: Welcome to our event. I’m today’s host, CLKao. Since some of our friends in Loomio passed by Asia, we invited them here in Taiwan today, to discuss diliberation with us. 

村長開場 Opening

Richard|enspiral 讓更多人做有意義的事

講稿 https://docs.google.com/document/d/18fp93KyrSOZhsfvKd8vvqWoNRAQxh2Ax8SY75H-LiZc/pub

投影片 http://audreyt.github.io/whatis.enspiral.com/

  • 翻譯
  • 大家好,我是 Rich,來自紐西蘭,我去年來台灣是 g0v summit,讓我很驚訝的是這裡有這麼多有趣的人在做有趣的事。我很榮幸有機會在韓國的旅程中來這裡逗留,認識朋友。我想講的是 enspiral,他很可愛,但可能不太好懂,所以我試著把速度放慢。enspiral 的概念是讓更多人做有意義的事,這是我的工作,每個人都要自己尋找自己覺得有意義的那件事是什麼。我在四年前遇到創辦人,我那時作為運動者沒什麼經驗,他說「商業基本上是從社會汲取比你產能多更多的價值」。我們是個大概三四百人的社群,我們也沒有老闆,如果你想做決定的話,就可以直接參與。每個在 Enspiral 網路裡面的人都貢獻他們的能力、時間、金錢、技術,我們也認為我們在一起能夠造成更大的影響。我們有程式設計師、設計師,可以自由決定要贊助多少收入給我們,我們也會參與式的決定如何使用這些錢。所以例如說上週我們發起了顧問專案。所以在網路裡,人們可以有不同層級的參與程度——有貢獻者,他們會參與專案;有會員,他們在網絡裡比較熟悉我們在做什麼。我們有法人持有者,但那在社群裡並不顯著。

    我們有非常非常多的協作空間,我們也每半年參與一次避靜(retreat),也是我們團隊以個體身份認識彼此的契機。這有點像是我們的演化過程(秀投影片),一開始都是科技人,他們都以短期合約的自由工作者加入,後來逐漸凝聚成獨立的基金會,也逐漸成長到可以承接政府合約,也招攬到不同程式領域優秀的人們。我們有線上的宣傳,也有線下的宣傳,如果你很積極參與的話,也有可能被直接邀請進來。我們或許像是恐怖的激進份子,可是我們用的語彙是協作。我們真的耗費不少心力在開放原始碼上面,我們也非常積極地想與各社群交上朋友。(這是我們 enspiral.)

    CLKao: Ensprial is actually a strange-shaped organization, and Loomio is like a regular tool within. (laugh)

    Ben |網路時代自行組織民主

    投影片 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VZia7aOJ0bWvkjmjrJ1ydAEIFC8OjGoA3bBKfOeA9I4/present

  • 翻譯
  • 兩年前 Loomio 還在很早的階段,由運動者、小型團體所使用,然而過了一陣子我們接到來自台灣有趣的消息,也認識到在太陽花學運裡面審議式民主逐漸被重視。我們打了幾通視訊電話,開了幾次線上功能 sprint,我們還在華盛頓認識了 CLKao。每個在 Loomio 的人都有很不一樣的背景,我也將在這裡分享一些我個人的故事,以及 Loomio 在世界哪裡被使用,以及未來的方向。幾年前我在攻讀神經科學博士,我常常感到好奇的是神經網路越來越複雜讓我們能應對越來越複雜的社會現象。我做了實驗試著教導黑猩猩使用觸控螢幕,有趣的是黑猩猩倒是對丟東西和伸展肌肉比較有興趣。黑猩猩是很奇怪很有趣的動物。他們的肌肉強度是同等重量的人類肌肉強度的 6 倍。後來我漸漸發現,美國的系統是大量繁殖黑猩猩等等靈長類,再販賣給實驗室做實驗。所以,在得知這樣的現實之後,加上我想所有在學術環境裡待過的人都可以理解的,學術知識的生產與現實社會脫節的情形,知識生產到這些知識實際上產生影響的時間間隔是如此的長,最後我終於無法繼續我的博士學位研究,決定回到紐西蘭。

    於是我回到了紐西蘭,加入了社會人權的倡議。這幾年發生了阿拉伯之春... 以及最終佔領華爾街。他們看起來可能互異,但平行於期間的一些共同點是很令人驚異的。紐西蘭在這裡(指),人們在這裡圍成一圈坐下來溝通,而你也在之中吸收了每個人的智慧,聆聽了他們的想法。有個簡單的概念是每個人都是相連的,可能前一秒他們討論的是人權,下一秒他們討論的是環境,而可能其中一些議題與資本是相連的。你知道有個概念是把壞人從有權勢的地方趕下來,把好人放上去,事情就解決了;可是事實上可以對這個系統或制度造成革命性的典範轉移。你知道這很重要的是我們即將在世界做出的改變,我們將組織我們自己與組織與NGO在可以永續的民主的方式之中。

    這件事可能對數以百計的世界上的人來說,我們很難讓討論規模成長,總是有人們會被關在圈圈之外,而有些人會取得比其他人更多的話語權。如果你看不到這些潛在的權力狀態,可能是不會發現這個結構的。由下而上的發展是包容的,但是脆弱的,做決策也緩慢;由上而下有效率,但同時排除他人參與。我們有沒有第三種可能?我們現在有網路,我們可以不用把人拒於人外,同樣可以達到有效率的參與。

    Ensprial 是個社會企業。我們嘗試從不同的角度達到我們要的改變。Loomio 我們稱做開源的意見決策,這是紐西蘭一個叫做 Generation Zero 的組織,他們內部使用 Loomio 做討論工具。這是關於減少運輸碳排放的討論,每個人都可以開啟提案,每個人都可以參與討論。當有個提案出現了,你可以按個鍵很容易的參與,可以同意、猶豫、隨眾、阻擋。提案永遠都有截止期限,所以你總是可以得到結論。

    當時線上只是個簡單的雛形,只有四個按鈕,然而我們很驚訝的是威靈頓市政府竟然使用了這套系統。除了佔領行動期間之外,我們很驚訝的是政府用這個決策酒精政策,舊金山的雜貨店,美國的高中⋯⋯很多的使用情境是我們沒想到的。匈牙利的學生將程式翻譯之後拿來使用,他們佔領政府組織,最終迫使政府正視議題。馬德里也在小規模的不同工作組織使用。

    紐西蘭也在 2016 用 Loomio 與 LGBT 人士們對談,最終也讓政府決定制定非二元的性別指導方針。我放了這張(太陽花)以免 CL 生氣(笑),我也是看了 audrey 的部落格知道標語上面寫什麼的。這是 Loomio 的團隊。我們是個社會企業,也是個合作社。是社會企業表示我們有一份社會責任契約;是合作社表示我們團隊是所有成員共有的。所以我們是一個以民主方式運作的團隊。

    時間過得很快我想我快沒時間了。(笑)我們透過不同的運動組織使用我們的程式,讓他們能夠快速有效的達成行動,採用 Loomio 的政府組織也終於讓受到政策影響的人民能夠參與政策的決策。我想世界正在為我們的改變與想要改變的人而甦醒,而我們也會持續努力。

    Blulu Part 1: Public Deliberation / Chiahua Lu

    審議概念篇 投影片,授權CC BY-NC講者會後感言

    Blulu Part 2 — Web Apps

    投影片(含講稿) https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19GFnA_ecKmJRcNNrluilIEVByXmY4YAfOXYQmzwmJWY/edit?usp=sharing

  • 翻譯
  • Chiahua just discussed the concept of deliberation, then use these concepts to analyze some tools familiar to informatics people. Link to my following slides can be found online on hackpad, containing a copy of the transcript. My name is ETBlue, the “Blu” in “Blulu”.

    My ID is easy to remember — it’s connected with my Chinese name.

    I mainly work on these areas (clinical medicine -> visual communication -> business planning -> UI Design), so the way I see things are limited by these fields.

    Earlier on, I was determined to be a front end engineer — but failed — so now I fell back as a UI designer.

    Today is a continuation of my talk at COSCUP this August. My main objective is on clarifying some aspects not dealt with in the previous talk.

    Today I will share with you four topics.

    First is “Where Could Web Apps Help Us in Deliberation”. As Chiahua just mentioned, every deliberation need to deal with four different levels of issues.

    The first level “Presenting Information” is best suited for informatics. When I attended a deliberation facilitated by Chiahua four years ago, topics were collected in a paper manual sent to my home; as new information arrived, they printed replacement pages on-site as hand-outs, so in the end there were stacks of messy papers. Nowadays, Chiahua’s deliberations almost always featured hackpad and hackfoldr, which can be updated at any time, and make things a lot easier than before.

    The second level, “implementation specific modes of meeting”, is not as easy to do with informatics alone. The reason is that forms of meetings — just like software development processes — heavily depend on particular circumstances, and so will always need situational customization, sometimes requiring a hybrid of two or more formats. Therefore, it is quite difficult to implement appropriate tools for any specific deliberation format; even when implemented, it is very likely to run into exceptions during practice.

    Incidentally, the Taipei City Government uses “amount of Citizen Café meetings” as a civil servant KPI, which attracted criticism from the deliberation community. An analogy would be a software company using “amount of Agile iterations held” as a KPI — I’m sure programmers in the audience can imagine the consequences.

    The third level — facilitating the discussion, helping communication, clarifying and integrating the entire deliberation — are often the responsibility of offline and online moderators. There is no known equivalents in informatics. Although AI has come a long way, we still can’t let Siri to chair the deliberation work — Siri will just tell some cheesy jokes.

    The fourth level — establishing the political context — also requires human brains. After all, we have not developed information tools such as the Magi supercomputers [in the Evangelion fantasy world] that substitutes the political judgment of humankind.

    So, when we talk about the proper application of informatics, it’s mostly about the first layer. Namely, when someone — a government agency, or a political party, or a NGO, or some other units — contacts us to deploy informatics for their deliberation activities, we can inform them upfront that informatics can help mainly with the first layer; the other layers need human intervention and most importantly know-hows of practitioners of deliberative democracy.

    When the informatics people first worked with deliberation people, both groups may harbor beautiful fantasies. For example, some developers may wish to develop an end-all-be-all ultimate deliberation platform; some political workers may wish to upload all deliberation activities online. However, after a few attempts, we have established a boundary of applied informatics in deliberation, which may serve as a useful reference for people who wish to develop such tools or applying such tools in deliberations.

    So, specifically, which kinds of informatics tools are usable in which scenarios?

    As I just mentioned, deliberation meeting formats are like software development processes; they vary wildly during implementation. Therefore we cannot pinpoint specific kinds of tools and say for certain that they are fit for some specific modes of deliberation.

    Moreover, since each format of deliberation can be applied in any phase of public policy lifecycle, we also cannot say for sure which tools are meant for which phase in the lifecycle.

    However, there are common workflows between various formats of deliberative meetings, and each stage has its own goals and needs. Therefore, we can say with relative certainty which tools are appropriate to each stages in the workflow.

    During the the agenda-setting stage, you need to communicate with stakeholders, as well as organizing data relevant to the issues.

    Here are the corresponding tools. Among these, Chiahua use hackfoldr and hackpad, and of course her favorite technology — whiteboards.

    The second stage has the same requirements as the first stage.

    The third stage “Inform” is mostly about data presentation with visualization, which must then be circulated online and kept up-to-date.

    Here are the corresponding tools. Among these,  Chiahua still mostly uses hackpad and hackfoldr.

    The “Discussion” stage has more complicated requirements.

    In practice, we have deployed Livestreaming tools, by which a physical meeting is broadcasted on the internet, allowing people to watch and join in real time via textual messages.

    We have also deployed record-keeping tools. For example, people can collaborate on real-time transcripts via hackpad, then importing to other tools for visual presentation.

    Here are the tools appropriate to the requirements in the “Voting” stage.

    At present Chiahua uses only typeform; most of the time the voting takes place in physical meetings.

    There are also tools that consolidates multiple stages — or embeds other tools via an application interface — customized for the needs of specific organizations. I list also here some commonly-heard tools, for requirements of civic participation outside the context of deliberation.

    Back to today’s protagonist: Loomio,

    Among the list of stages, Loomio appears in stages 4 “Discussion” and 5 “Voting”. So for informatics people here, if someone — government agencies, political parties, NGOs, any organization — asks you to deploy Loomio during public policy discussions, you can use it in combination with some other listed tools in the first 3 stages.

    So how does Loomio work in practice? We will use two use cases — both are used for public policy — one in New Zealand and one in Taiwan.

    For New Zealand’s case, I took a write-up on the Loomio blog and analyzed its contents.

    The first thing to note is that the Wellington City Council used Loomio for gathering ideas about alcohol management strategy, not directly doing legislation online. So throughout the policy lifecycle, I consider this case to be in the first or the second phase.

    During the deliberative workflow stages, they mostly used Loomio for the “discussion” stage.

    Because the Loomio system does not have survey and inform functions built-in, they also invited civil servants and professionals to the Loomio platform, in order to provide the required information at any time.

    More than building a platform, the Loomio team also involved in various other ways, including agenda setting with a human facilitators in online discussions.

    In addition to providing an internet platform, the Loomio team also worked on deep integration of the whole project, deeper forms, facilitating discussions.

    Above is my take on this case of New Zealand’s use of Loomio.

    Let’s look at Taiwan’s case, namely the National Economic Forum’s use of Loomio during June and July last year.

    First of all, the Forum was a reaction to the Sunflower Occupy movement; it corresponded to the cross-strait trade agreement, which has already entered the Parliament. Hence it is in the third stage during the public policy lifecycle.

    There were online and offline parts of the Forum; the online parts involved people in the grassroots community. However, the NDC sought help from the second layer — the format of the forum — while the civic society would like to involve in the wider political context.

    Seen from the deliberation workflow, we see that the NDC sought help at the 4th stage, while the civic society would like involvement on stages 1 and 7.

    So the online Forum was launched with Loomio. However, few people actually involved, largely talking past each other; there were no meaningful discussion, and then whole activity was over.

    The case looks pretty successful in New Zealand, but the Taiwan’s case was considered a failure. They both use Loomio, but what are the factors that determined different outcomes?

    First of all, judging from the policy life cycle, Wellington uses Loomio to generate the policy from the beginning; however the economic and trade meeting is already at the end of policy formation.

    And then there’s the case of Wellington City Council has designated officers in Loomio, direct the discussions, while the Forum did not.

    Judging from the deliberation process, outside the hosts, Wellington City Council has sent independent experts in Loomio site to fulfill the “Inform” function, while the Forum did not.

    After comparing the two cases, here are some personal experience I would like to share.

    During the past year, Taiwan has its successes and failures for informatics-assisted deliberation; well, there were more failures than success stories. So how shall we run an effective deliberation with online tools?

    First of all, informatics have their limitations. In some cases, when we combine online tools and offline meetings, we achieve better results, such as vTaiwan’s working group meetings that worked with online discussions.

    In the public policy lifecycle, whether it is online or offline, we need to consider how early the intervention of deliberation techniques are applied. The earlier, the better. The later the participation, the less trustworthy the whole endeavor will be considered; this can severely affect the quality and willingness of participants in the discussion — Various citizens groups boycotted the Forum for precisely this reason.

    Also, the discussion must involve stakeholders and experts who share different, more in-depth understanding of the issue with the help from a core information team; it too is essential in the design of a good participation process, like the Loomio team in Wellington’s case.

    Now we should realize that whether a networked deliberation succeeds or not, the most important factor is not the tool — after all, tools are just the surface layer of the deliberative structure — the most important factors are at the core: Political context, and facilitation, and proper implementation of deliberative formats. Without core skills, tools are just decorations. On the other hand, with good core skills, even the most mundane tools can be put to good use, such as the awesome Peggy who ran online deliberations using Facebook and hackpad alone.

    So these were some of our preliminary results. Because the Blulu metrics is still an alpha version, the content may be modified at any time, but if you find this useful, then please go ahead and use it!

    (Credits)

    Early March next year, Chiahua will do another deliberation seminar with the agenda “deliberation x information” — interested folks are welcome to track Chiahua’s Facebook. Thank you!

    lightning talk 1 / Ben

    我想針對最後兩個演講做些回應。我同意許多裡頭提到的論點。例如說國發會與威靈頓市政府的比較,我們之前並不知道國發會在使用  Loomio,所以真的很有趣。有時候有些人使用 Loomio  只是想使用平台,但後來才發現他們其實不知道的是如何好好和市民對話。審議民主的確反映了一些政府關起門來做決定的問題。紐西蘭政府雖然在採用  Loomio,但我們的議會並沒有非常意志堅強的在推動,我們也要常常推動各式各樣的訓練讓成果能順利產生。最後議會也採用了產出的結果,這是非常有潛力的成果。這是個因果問題(雞生蛋蛋生雞?),如果我覺得參與這個不會有成果,我就不會參與。我們被生在一個我們沒有理由去信任的政治系統裡。我們也的確很希望有共識模型的視覺化,能解決政府看起來很友善但實質上並沒有解決問題的情況。謝謝。感謝兩位願意用 CC 授權釋出,我們未來會好好使用這個視覺分析框架。

    lightning talk 2 / clkao

    lightning talk 3 / 雨蒼

    (雨蒼說:遙遠的某一天(maybe...選後),才能公開,目前,僅能放在在場聆聽的各位心中)

    lightning talk 4 / 哲瑋

    會前籌備區

    (Loomio co-founders)

    p.s. 動民主相關夥伴請看本 pad 下方 本地講者講題籌備區

    活動文案

    自 2014 年 318 運動後,審議民主在台灣政府與民間開始有了能見度,各種與網路工具結合的嘗試,也紛紛出現,如經貿國是會議網路審議、社民黨網路審議、虛擬法規調適、政問。然而,跟實體工具一樣,網路工具也有自己的限制,實體與網路各自的限制,影響著審議成果的信度與效度。網路工具應用在公共議題上,與應用在組織團體內部,有許多不同的考量。究竟,在公共政策與社會議題的場域中,網路工具扮演著什麼角色?

    這場活動,我們邀請到 Loomio 的創辦人 Benjamin Knight 與 Richard Bartlett 介紹 Loomio 在公共政策上的應用,以及審議專業工作者呂家華、g0v 動民主專案參與者 ETBlue(藍一婷)介紹兩人共同設計的審議網路工具量表 blulu,並與 Loomio 平台上的案例作對應。希望能為有志於開發網路工具的技術人或有志於使用網路工具的審議人帶來新的思考方向。

    這次活動也開放五分鐘閃電短講(lightning talks),歡迎現場報名。

    Loomio

    Loomio 是一家由倡議者所驅動的科技合作社(co-op)。在 2011  年的佔領運動中,因著運動群眾需要大規模運用網路串連與協同治理,Loomio  開發了一套開源的民主治理工具。目前全世界已有上千個社群、倡議團體、社運組織運用 Loomio 進行過 30,000  個以上決策,型態從巿民參與巿政訂定,到高中生與父母老師共同議決事務。Loomio  的使命是為所有社群與組織培力,讓多元的觀點得以交織成有力的集體行動。

    Emerging in response to the need for scalable networked governance during the Occupy movement in 2011, Loomio, an activist-driven tech co-op, developed an open-source tool for democratic organizing. Loomio is now used by thousands of change-making communities, political initiatives, social movements and organizations. It has been used to make more than 30,000 decisions, from city governments involving citizens in policy making, to cooperative businesses undertaking collaborative governance, to high-school students making decisions with parents and teachers. Loomio is on a mission to empower communities and organizations everywhere to weave diverse perspectives into powerful collective action. 

  • 參考資料
  • Loomio is an open source tool for democratic self-organising, built by a small team of free software developers, facilitators and Occupy activists in New Zealand. Two years into development, Loomio is being used by thousands of groups in 74 countries, from grassroots activists organising large-scale protests through to high school students, neighbourhoods and government departments using it for democratic collaboration.

    在 g0v summit 2014 unconf

    講者簡介

  • Richard Bartlett
  • photo: http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d5039eb7649c89379ed0715e41a68310?s=400

    Rich Bartlett is a co-founder of Loomio, an open source tool for democratic self-organising built by a team of free software developers, facilitators and Occupy activists in New Zealand. Rich was wasting his life as an engineer, until he started building DIY electronics and discovered the open source hardware community. Now he works as a software engineer on Loomio, applying the DIY open source engineering approach to 21st century democracy.

  • 審議實務推手:呂家華 / Chia-Hua Lu
  • 呂家華,一開始為青年審議的主持人出身,也陸續參與、協助學術研究團隊執行政府審議民主多個研究計劃,以及,協助民間團體進行內部工作坊或是相關程序論述。

    與政府單位互動的審議民主相關欄目,目前包括:

    台北市政府公民參與委員會公民參政組召集人

    包括i-voting、世界咖啡館、台北市公聽會制度檢討改善、參與式預算等,這些議題都是由該委員會討論決定後續推動方向。

    這份( 請點→ 公開版的紀錄)可以讓大家知道台北市政府的公民參與概況。

    台南市《飛雁新村》公民參與專案規劃者

    相比於台北市是用一個民間、政府委員組成的委員會來操作公民參與,台南市目前是用專案的方式進行公民參與的嘗試;家華目前有與副市長等人共同規劃該專案的進程,以及台南市府員工的審議民主課程。

    另外包括台中市政府也都在近期與家華有公民參與的規劃案或訓練案。除了公部門的協力,家華會協助港台民間團體在審議式公民參與或審議式社會運動的培訓與推展。

    雖然出身民間,但透過與政府的合作,家華也是嘗試花時間在了解政府思維的民間人,她的公民參與想像是包括體制內外,也把程序拆解成大的制度架構,以及單場會議該如何進行。因此,公聽會、聽證會、各項行政程序審議等實體會議也是其關懷重點,這一年來再引入科技技術,讓實體會議有機會在線上再做延伸。

    照片、臉書連結:參考 http://ocftw.kktix.cc/events/socp

    呂家華長期與大學教授、學生及社區大學工作人員,共同推動各項公共政策的審議民主會議與相關培力。現為台北市公民參與委員會「公民參政組」召集人。她將分享台灣過往推動審議民主的觀察與反省,以及318一系列佔領運動、去年底九合一選舉後,紛紛喊公民參與、開放政府的縣市,在參與預算等操作上的觀察。

    ”前“台灣守護民主平台公共政策部主任

    長期推動審議式民主,曾參與處理蘇花改監督委員會、東發條例、風機設置距離、南鐵地下化東移等聽證會公民參與程序;反媒體壟斷運動等。

  • g0v 動民主專案參與者:ETBlue
  • 照片 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0NsS2a-Qx8ZcldNNHdndUdMbkU/view?usp=sharing

    url http://etblue.blogspot.tw/

    ETBlue 長期參與 g0v 動民主專案,為了開發網路審議系統,針對各種使用情境設計多套雛形、參與經貿國是會議網路審議、最後進入公民憲政推動聯盟參與草根論壇籌備,過程中所有心得發表於 COSCUP 2015 「動民主血淚史」演講。在本次活動中,將繼續釐清該場演講未完成的部分,進一步探討網路工具在審議中扮演的角色。

    工作區

    預算:

    預計規模:(例 30~50ppl)

    本地講者:ETBlue + 家華女王

    工作人員簽到區:clkao、pm5、singing

    場地

    I. Appier Cafe

    容納人數:40~50

    設備:

    租金:免費,Appier Cafe 員工可免報名參加

    信件 template

    會前通知信

    Hi, 

    明天(12/9)就是「Loomio、審議、動民主」活動了,以下幾件事情要提醒您: 

    - 報到時間:19:00 - 19:30

    - 活動時間:19:30 - 21:30

    - 活動地點:Appier Cafe / 台北市信義區基隆路一段394號1樓 

    (地理位置請參考:https://goo.gl/maps/6Ta8PFLepV32)

    - 現場將開放4個「五分鐘閃電講」,歡迎您分享關於公民參與、開放政府、開放資料等主題的實務或心得,請在接待桌報名。 

    - 活動提供簡易三明治與茶水,建議您自備環保杯。 

    - 目前還有名額可以報名,歡迎邀請朋友一同參加;若您當日不克出席,請至 https://kktix.com/dashboard/overview 取消報名,方便我們統計人數,謝謝!

    我們明天見囉!

    開放文化基金會 

    國際交流計畫小組 敬啟

    Thanks for signing up for the "Loomio、審議、動民主" Event. 

    Here are some reminders: 

    - Event time: 12/9 (Wed) 19:00 - 21:30

    - Location: Appier Cafe / 1F., No.394, Sec. 1, Keelung Rd., Xinyi Dist., Taipei City

    (Map: https://goo.gl/maps/6Ta8PFLepV32 

    - We have 4 5-min lightning talks open for those who wish to share their experiences or thoughts regarding citizen participation, open government, or open data. Please sign up at the reception. 

    - Snacks and beverages will be provided. Please kindly bring your own mug. 

    - In case you can’t make it, please kindly visit https://kktix.com/dashboard/overview and cancel your ticket.

    See you tomorrow!

    Open Culture Foundation 

    International Team

    會後問卷(範例)

    Hi, 

    感謝你今晚參加「Loomio、審議、動民主」,請利用 2 分鐘的時間協助填寫活動會後問卷,提供我們寶貴的意見回饋,讓下一次的國際交流活動可以更好,問卷連結:https://singing.typeform.com/to/xwWhi0

    感謝社群志工的協助,今日活動相關記錄已發佈上網

    感謝你的參加,我們下次見囉!

    開放文化基金會

    國際交流計劃小組 敬啟

    議程組合選項

    ver 1

    ver 2

    ver 3

    ver 4 2015/11/29 版

    現場討論白板↓

    Part1. 30 mins / loomio

    主題:loomio 定位、主題統計、公共政策與社會議題應用案例、未來發展

    1. 介紹 loomio
      1. 他們研發時怎麼定位工具使用
      2. 多數處理什麼議題類型與政策階段?
      3. 有社會運動的倡議團體討論嗎?
    2. 講幾個公民參與跟審議的個案
      1. 在這些審議裡loomio發揮什麼功能
      2. 有沒有跟其他工具結合
      3. 跟實體活動怎麼串接
    3. 下一個階段的挑戰或發展

    Part2. 20 mins / 家華

    主題:blulu 量表:審議概念篇

    1. 不管實體或虛擬,一個公共政策、議題討論會經過幾個階段,避免被模式框住,要回到議題階段思考。1-8比較複雜今天處理1-5
    2. 當他碰到跟網路工具,有四個層次
      1. 第一個是視覺化、呈現
      2. 第二是不同討論模式中會需要處理的概念,歸納、收攏、釐清、倡議議題(怎麼agenda setting)
      3. 第三小編在實體會議的角色
      4. 第四看的不是台面上討論的當下,而是套用在整個決策過程中,政治的關係、政策的處理、政治扮演的角色,台下的概念
    3. 面對公務系統、社會運動不一樣

    Part3. 30 mins / ET

    主題:blulu 量表:網路工具篇

    1. 1-8 對應 1234,網路工具在哪裡可以用
    2. 1-8 對應各種網路工具
    3. loomio case 擺在裡面的哪裡
    4. 給宅宅的建議:飛花折葉也可以做審議

    國外講者講題籌備區

    議程討論

    pm5:

    ET:

    許願區

    ttcat:

    本地講者講題籌備區

    cc ttcat0902@gmail.com, Charles Chuang , ipa chiu , Chia Hua  , Lo Pei-Chi (羅佩琪) , bradztlee@gmail.com , Chia-liang Kao , Li-Ting Shirley Huang , ly.forever@gmail.com , isabel.hou@gmail.com

    議程討論

  • pm5 表示:
  • ET 表示:
  • 家華表示:
  • 阿端表示:
  • 不是一個講者、兩個與談人?一個外國人跟家華對談,會有些交流,主持人可以準備口袋問題,可以交叉問比地跟外國經驗,一個是實體審議操作者,一個視線上審議平台創辦人,他們之間是否有同樣的idea,各自對審議的想像是什麼,這樣就好了,一人準備個十分鐘開場,剩下的可以對談。

    本地內容:公民參與 or 審議操作 vs 網路工具篇

    時間:35mins

  • 主題許願區
  • 給技術宅宅們的審議 ABC:

    1. 議程設定 Agenda Setting
    2. 研究調查 Survey
    3. 知情 Inform
    4. 討論 Discussion
    5. 投票 Voting
    6. 決定 Decision
    7. 回應 Respond
    8. 課責 Accountability

    審議在政府體制下的運用方式:

    審議在社運體制下的運用方式:

    哪些情況適合哪種審議操作方式:

    站在第一線人員的角度來看網路工具:

    本地內容:動民主篇

    時間:35mins

    主題:

    1. (這邊要重新設計一下,看怎麼銜接家華的 talk,沿著家華的脈絡繼續講)
    2. 動民主血淚史前情提要:動民主與 loomio 的邂逅 - 5mins 帶過就好
    1. 動民主血淚史回診追蹤報告:工具人上前線了嗎? - 5 mins 帶過就好
    1. 藍式量表第二代 —— 藍呂(BL)量表!XD:網路審議工具適應症分布圖 - 15 ~ 20 mins  搭配實際案例

    待研究功課

    待收集情報