Decidim Redesign
🎨 Community participatory process for contributing to the Decidim redesign
Decidim aspires to be a democratic project for the future and this requires a continuous improvement of its software. The current redesign process is a way to guarantee this improvement. By opening this debate¹, we want to contribute to this process by delving into one of its key facets or possibilities: the deliberative one. Currently, conversations in Decidim take place through comments, which are enabled by default in most spaces (or components) of the platform, as well as through the Debates space. We would like to know your opinion about how the deliberation in Decidim could be improved. In particular, we would like to know what new functionalities (i.e. operational elements of Decidim's design) could improve debate and dissent, as well as consensus and collective decision-making.
This debate complements the LAB on Decidim and Deliberation of the Friday 3 June in Barcelona. This LAB is framed in the context of the DELMA project, a line of work of the >D2< open space for transdisciplinary and participatory research on the multiple interrelationships between data and democracy, led by Tecnopolítica. As for the debate we open here, it is promoted by the Decidim redesign and product team, together with Tecnopolitica.
Soon we will share a new prototype with relevant advances of the redesign. Stay tuned!
¹This issue has been addressed in previous discussions.
Discussion Questions:
- How can we improve feedback and engagement to encourage and facilitate deliberative conversations?
- In your experience, how does the Debate component work? What positive or negative experiences have you had opening debates?
- What use cases are useful to think about how to improve Debates? What other platforms can serve as an inspiring example?
- What new features should the Debates component incorporate and why? How do we deal with the polarization that can occur in this type of space?
- Can we imagine Decidim as a space to have a global conversation? What needs to improve to get to this stage?
We already have the video of the LAB Metadecidim session - Session 17. decidem.delibera: Deliberative Democracy in Decidim! Check it out right here if you couldn't come to the LAB.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Close debate
What is the summary or conclusion of this debate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Nadia Nadesan
What I wanted to emphasize is the people power platforms both as participants and as designers, facilitators, and moderators. I was working on a design to moderate debates for young people on decidim and an important question was how to make the moderator's life easier. What controls should be obvious or handy?
But thank you for sharing these resources they are v. interesting 😄
Sure Nadia, I just thought that one of the tasks of moderators is to help participants get a clear idea of how the debate is progressing (so they can better contribute to the deliberation) , and structuring the debate as pros/cons seems very handy to me. For example, if someone poses a comment against a topic and it is listed together with other cons, then, it will be easier for the participant to see if it adds new insights, and, in case it is redundant with previous cons and the participant does not realize, then the moderator can politely point that out.
Yeah I have been think about this since you sent the resources, I really like consider.it because it puts things on a spectrum :)
Loading comments ...