How to coordinate various platforms on different administrative scales?
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Citizen participation approaches are multiplying on the same territory in an uncoordinated and sometimes conflicting way, leading to the blurring of the message of opening up public action, and to over- solicitation of the population of the territory.
- Example of the participatory budget at almost all administrative levels in France:
- 2 cities on the territory have a participatory budget platform, and 3 others wish to develop a participatory budget approach.
- Intermunicipality with an ambitious citizen participation strategy could develop a participatory budget
- The higher level of administration (department) has implemented a participatory budget
- The region has implemented a participatory budget
- Examples of consultations on the same territory:
- Various consultations organized by the cities
- Various consultations organized by the inter-cities scale
- Consultations organized by the National Council for Refoundation (national level)
Each player therefore also wishes to have a platform respecting its own graphic identity, with a domain name citing its own denomination such as “decidim.my-city.fr”. The establishment of a single platform hosting all the consultations would not be accepted by the institutions.
Describe the solution you'd like
Develop a network of platforms apparently disconnected from each other and sufficiently independent to present a different graphic identity, a specific menu bar for each actor wishing to highlight certain specific procedures, and having a domain name quoting the entity.
However, each platform would be, in the back office, connected to a single “mother” database allowing the pooling of procedures.
Example of desired features
Participatory budget: each actor would present on their platform, according to the same timetable, a participatory budget on which the citizens of each city could submit projects on the platform of their choice (city or inter-municipality for example). The projects submitted would however be adapted according to their field of competence and their geographical scope to appear on the other platforms concerned (take the example of a project on two cities, the project would appear on the two platforms). Finally, all the people in the territory concerned could express themselves on the projects submitted on all the platforms: a Dionysian (Saint-Denis) could vote on the Saint-Denis platform for a project submitted by a Stanois (Stains) on the Stains platform for a project concerning the entire intermunicipal community.
Online citizen dialogue: in the same way as above, a Dionysian could respond on the Saint-Denis platform to a proposal submitted by a Stanois on the Stains platform. All the dialogue spaces would be updated according to the submission of comments throughout the territory.
Does this issue could impact on users private data?
Funding could become available if an actual solution could be proposed. Eventually funded by Plaine Commune, and EU funds