Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding your thoughts on provide a discussion forum capability around generated Ideas (rather than simply a yes/no vote on it) I think you’re spot on. When I speak with those involved in Community Engagement around Policy or Transport plans for example, there is a huge desire for ‘informed responses’ and those informed responses often require the ability to ‘question the question’ – i.e. better understand exactly what the question is they are being asked (or what the idea is that is being postulated). In addition though, a discussion with a group of like minded peers about and around the idea often generates a ‘crisper’ definition of what is desired by the community.

It’s a little like the (probably apocryphal) statement of Henry Ford … “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted they’d have asked for a faster horse!”. Indeed Mr Ford, but if you’d have then asked them why they wanted a faster horse you’d have got to their ‘real’ desire.

Regarding your thoughts on remote contributions – yes I think I agree with you – in the context of contributing to and enhancing the idea. But in terms of simply voting on it to raise it’s profile then I am not sure still.

Thanks for the links to the dialogue mapping tools – really interesting. I must try to meet with Peter Baldwin when next in Sydney – are you associated with his organisation?

Thanks again!

David

Contributions from individuals who are not impacted by the proposition (e.g. someone who lives internationally) are relevant. They may have knowledge or ideas based on their own experiences in their community and their contribution could help other communities benefit or learn from their mistakes.

Your suggestion that government agencies must implement a response platform is, in my opinion, spot on. This is the answer to the driving question “now what?” I would expect that the role of these agencies is to deliver the analysis of the arguments, make a decision and to provide a response that demonstrates that the community ideas have been heard. If they do this job well, they don’t get voted out.
I believe that even unpopular decisions could be accepted by a community if the response explains the reasoning, acknowledges opposing arguments and considers possible amendments to address these.
Just to throw another product into the mix, check out the debategrah’s implementation of dialogue mapping.
http://debategraph.org/
http://www.cognexus.org/id41.htm

@ricky_elias