@Tihamer @Robert @Philip
Would you like to collaborate on implementing an Actual system, and not just engage in mental exercise? These essay submissions are unimportant unless acted upon.
From my perspective, you each are talking about different parts of the same system.
1) broad and diverse open forum limited to unrestricted research
2) software automation to make phases of development obvious and provide supporting tools to grow each phase of development
3) motivational structures built into the system to drive development into implementation
4) crowd-sourcing tools made available to fund phases of development. This is especially interesting because then after seeding an NSF proposal it can evolve in parallel diverse directions to seed other developments not ever first considered in the original NSF proposal. So NSF would become a one of the many crowd-sourcing funding agencies.
5) Training tools for skills can be made available to everyone to acquire social group related skills. Where each development project that evolves within the open peer review forum involves diverse specialties. To share communication skills with the group each person will need to familiarize themselves with the jargon and rudimentary relationships that are common to each participant. These related skills can be made available via online courses (many of which are currently free).
6) A system of equitable participation is developed to track the total involvement and contributions of each peer development group that evolves from the open peer review group. In this way when monetary gains occur, each person can be equitably be compensated.
7) .........
http://jamesbdunn2.blogspot.com/2014/05/open-peer-review-to-support-synergy-of.html
I can go on, but I hope this is enough information to create a perspective of an open online tool where open peer review transitions into open peer development.
Tihamer's concepts for supporting his three points of steering the future involved rhetoric (the expert use of language) to define perspectives of commonly relatable situations that resulted in:
1. Develop physical tools that give atomically precise control over bulk matter,
2. Multiply the size, diversity, and hardiness of Earth's biosphere (by transplanting it elsewhere),
3. Develop tools that help us think better.
I myself have attempted to do mind mappings for all of these. I'm guessing I'm not unique. So why aren't we doing something about it together?
Robert, you seem to be relating how a person's political connections and influences (i.e. perspectives and relationships) drive the support systems for any development. Political tools are built in applying the same structural foundations but different environment of applications for common sense.
Common Sense = Self-esteem (sharing of social group skills) logic predicting consequences
So politics is based in understanding and applying emotional skills logically connected to social skills, to manipulate broad systems of human efforts toward a desired set of outcomes.
Nothing we know is absolute, except for one thing; "Something Exists". Everything else is built from relative systems of perspectives and supporting relationships. We cannot see or perceive everything relative to a perspective, so sometimes other unseen influences become dominant and our perspective no longer is completely valid.
I challenge you to find one perspective other than "Something Exists" that is Absolutely True always in every time frame and every dimensional consideration. If you do, then you have found a characteristic of quantum causality.
Our brains live in what others outside this forum would consider an illusion. We use repeatable observations that result from identified consequences that provide a higher probability of success than random. Bias is based in broad perceived likelihood for success relative to the total systems of involved with a consideration.
So no two people are going to share the same biases.
The Open Peer Review process inclusive of other areas is important.
Expertise in one area of consideration can be almost completely unrelated to another perspective being considered.
Open Peer Review that causes people of like interests to mutually develop common skills to share in a development has the potential to drive broad economic developments, that fund ever growing numbers of significant developments that we currently cannot fund with our present system of peer review.
What do you think? Productive collaboration?
You can contact me at the below url so you do not expose your email address to spam harvesters.
http://www.ua-kits.com/frontpage/index.php/contact-us/