ParticipateDB

From Airesis details page : Airesis is a free software platform, built by a team of Italian developers and contributors, to enable communities and groups to organize themselves in a productive manner according to the principles of direct democracy and participation. To achieve this goal, the application has been designed as a multifunctional system, which integrates all the tools that can help the development of a community, in particular “social” and deliberative tools. In order to gain access to Airesis, users first create an account and once logged in, can either look through the open groups or receive invitations to join closed groups. Administrators of groups are able to use permission-based membership in order to manage privileges and permissions of each member. Within the group, the user has access to social tools and deliberative tools . The first, social tools, provide users with blogs to share social messages or updates and event promotion depending on user-designated schedules. The second, deliberative tools, contain a voting system that may be anonymized for electing candidates as well as collecting and deliberating proposals and initiatives. An introduction video to Airesis (in Italian) can be found here . Airesis is developed by a team of volunteers and managed by the Tecnologie Democratichie based in Italy. The source code is available on Github .

The BiPart Web Platform is used to coordinate and manage the participatory budgeting process in both school and municipality settings. It has four core features: Community Space : a free and shared space to collect ideas, reports, and proposals from the community and to interact in a simple and direct way Deliberative Tool : an instrument for co-designing ideas at a distance, building social networks between institutions and citizens to arrive at deliberative proposals Vote Tool : a tool for the management of voting (single vote, multivotation, etc …); flexible management of the variables for the dynamic configuration, the function of marking, coordination and election Authentication : Integrated authentication system with external services (email, sms) and digital identity management in SaaS [Software as a Server, defined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service] mode The BiPart Web Platform is developed by BiPart, an organization that bq. deals with research, planning and implementation of participatory budgets and processes of democratic innovation, through the use of deliberative techniques and digital technologies. A video introduction of the organization can be found here . BiPart is part of the Empatia Network and contributes to the Empatia project. Their work can be found on Empatia’s Github .

Common Ground for Action ( CGA ) is an online deliberation and strategy platform developed by our founding partner Conteneo in collaboration with The Kettering Foundation. Rooted in the Kettering Foundation’s mission of cooperative research, Common Ground for Action moves participants from informed to engaged — engagement that comes from exposing participants, through an online deliberative process, to the broad spectrum of drawbacks and advantages of actions in a complex issue. In CGA , small groups are able to learn more about the tensions in an issue, examine options for dealing with the problem, weigh tradeoffs, and find common ground just like in in-person National Issues Forums, but with beautiful visuals that let you actually see the shape of your conversation as it evolves. Common Ground for Action is developed by the Kettering Foundation in collaboration with Conteneo , based in Sunnyvale, CA ( USA ).

Consider.it is an online discussion and deliberation tool for municipalities or community agencies to propose questions and obtain input from users. Upon entering the individual page for a question, users can see the thoughts and opinions of others in the form of a histogram shaped as a slider scale (disagree to agree) and a ranked list of the top pro and con reasons supporting users’ opinions. Each individual opinion is visualized as a small circle on the scale located at the point in the slider that they selected in their response. By clicking on each individual circle, users can view the person’s name, profile picture (if added), position on the scale, and their listed pros and cons. If a user would like to contribute to the page, they are first prompted to choose a point within the disagree-agree scale that best reflects their opinion. After doing so, they are prompted to provide further comments in the form of listing pros and cons. Users can use the pros and cons submitted by others or add their own ones. Additional features of the Consider.it platform include comment moderation by forum administrators, custom branding, forum visibility customization (public or private), collection of custom user information, and language translation. More information about these features as well as a tour of the Consider.it platform can be found here . A video demonstration of the platform can be found here . Sample Consider.it forums can be accessed for the topics of public engagement , strategic planning , and decentralized decisions Consider.it is based in Portland, Oregon.

An “e-deliberation SaaS engine” from Italy. From the website: Deebase is an innovative platform aimed at supporting communities in fostering the exchange of ideas among their members, turning chaotic interactions into full-fledged debates.

From the website: The philosophical aim of VAP software creation [Delibera] was helping people understand informational materials through rich visual language and the opportunity for well-structured conversation. This was to be accomplished both through carefully designed computer mediated communication and through document design and access. The first goal was to create an immersive online environment utilizing good human-computer interaction principles and audio /video capability in order to make the program accessible to all participants, even those who are not tech savvy. If successful, this interface would help place the user in a “virtual agora,” a marketplace of ideas where they would experience conversations with others in a high telepresence setting. These goals have been pursued throughout the development stages of all our software efforts. Features include: Synchronous audio conferencing Asynchronous threaded discussions in a topic-based discussion environment User access/visibility permissions, giving discussion managers the ability to group users into separate discussion Forums Capacities for browsing, searching, uploading, rating, and annotating of content, including hierarchical category-based storage of content in various formats User Clipboard, enabling the user to store references to asynchronous postings and content from inside and outside the system Polling Delibera is developed and managed by Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for the Study of Information Technology and Society (InSITeS), under the technical leadership of Stuart Easterling, with primary supervision by Robert Cavalier, and supported by funding from the National Science Foundation. Update : Delibera 1.0 has been discontinued. In order to access the site, visit an archived copy . There is also an updated version, Delibera 2.0 .

From the website of Mark Klein, the creator of the Deliberatorium: The Deliberatorium is a technology designed to help large numbers of people, distributed in space and time, combine their insights to find well-founded solutions for such complex multi-stakeholder multi-disciplinary (“wicked”) problems as sustainability, climate change policy, complex product design, and so on. Deliberatorium is being developed at MIT .

Deme is an “Open Web CMS /Framework for Social, Semantic Data” that originally started out as a “Free/Open Source Platform for Online Group Deliberation and Dialogue”. From the preview website : What basic usage is Deme designed for? Deme is being developed for groups of people who want to make decisions democratically and to do at least some of their organizational work without having to meet face-to-face. It provides the functionality of message boards and email lists for discussion, integrated with tools for collaborative writing, item-structured and document-centered commentary, straw polling and decision making, and storing and displaying group information. It is intended to be a flexible platform, supporting various styles of group interaction: dialogue and debate, cooperation and management, consensus and voting. Deme is open-source and its code is available on Github . Deme is developed by a team of developers headed by Todd Davies, project co-founder and lead investigator.

DEMOS (Delphi Mediation Online System) is a new online platform and specific method of supporting large scale citizen participation and result oriented public debates on the Internet – on a local, national or international level. DEMOS stands for Delphi Mediation Online System and integrates three well-proven social research methods, namely the Survey technique, the Delphi approach and the Mediation method. Starting with the classic Survey technique, this method is designed for representative opinion polls and contributes to public opinion formation on a large-scale basis by including (virtually) the entire population. This technique allows to monitor the opinion shaping process and to come to collectively accepted decisions. While the level of interactivity of standardised surveys is rather limited, Delphi polls operate with a higher amount of interactive feedback and can especially be used to systematically exploit expert knowledge. The basic idea is to generate a consensus among a number of domain experts by aggregated feedback. Feedback is supplied by the ‘Delphist’ on a strictly anonymous and statistical basis to exclude direct personal influence among the participants. A Delphi process runs through two (or more) cycles of interview-feedback-interview. After each cycle the experts are asked to rethink their original answers in the light of the statistically aggregated ‘group opinion’ that has emerged in the previous cycle, until a satisfactory level of convergence or (statistical) consensus is reached. Whereas both Survey and Delphi are quantitative methods, the Mediation technique is a qualitative method used to reveal problems and resolve conflicts. The basic idea of Mediation is that consensus is not a statistical figure but a negotiated compromise. Mediation is a group process chaired by an impartial mediator, and often running through several cycles of open discussion. DEMOS is developed and based in Berlin and Hamburg, Germany.

Discuto is a web-based application that promises to help you “reach a consensus quicker”. The platform features a patented algorithm meter, enabling users to instantly see the reaction to their document and respond accordingly. This appears next to information fields displaying how many people have participated and how many comments have been added. Discuto is a modern decision-making platform that mimics a classic offline process: proposal→debate→decision→implementation. The challenge when applying the above process is how to negotiate each step in a way that organises interaction, collaboration and creation, before leading to consensus and decision-making. […] One of the best things about Discuto is its efficiency. The set-up allows real-time document-based debates, instead of sending around track-changed Word files to multiple recipients. And this works for groups large and small, documents brief or lengthy. The larger and more active the crowd, the larger the productivity gains. Whatever the background, interests or requirements, discuto.io provides the ideal platform to explore early concepts, refine existing approaches and launch new ideas. Discuto is being developed by Bisamberg, Austria-based Community-based Innovation Systems GmbH .

From the website: e-Deliberation™ is a collaborative platform for decision making and strategy building. It is used by teams and communities to resolve multi-stakeholder & multifaceted challenges and problems. From the FAQ : What is e-Deliberation™? e-Deliberation™ is a secure online process designed to help people achieve a meeting of the minds. e-Deliberation™ allows teams to deliberate on tough issues from many angles at the same time and to effectively resolve them. e-Deliberation™ can be used for both face to face and online events. You can use the e‑Deliberation™ site to assemble a team for substantial on-line deliberation for strategic planning, to resolve a difficult problem, to come to terms with a multifaceted challenge or to align multiple perspectives to create a vision for the future. Whether your team members are all located in the same facility and can physically come together, or strewn all over the world and therefore need to meet online, e-Deliberation will dramatically increase the effectiveness of your meetings. The key to this efficiency is the e‑Deliberation™ process. This process is designed to help achieve a meeting of the minds between participants in an e-Deliberation event. Your team will achieve its goals more quickly and will build stronger ties and understanding than ever before. The core issue to be resolved is considered from a number of perspectives in parallel. Several feedback loops designed into the e‑Deliberation™ process ensure that the development of each of these complementary perspectives is consistent with complements each of the other ones. At several points in the process, each participant can take stock of where things stand and give clear quantitative and qualitative feedback about his or her views with regard to proposed resolutions. There is opportunity for minority perspectives to be presented, endorsed and included in the outcome resolutions if these perspectives are deemed relevant to the whole. No-one is left out, the process respects every voice at an equal footing. People feel validated, heard and respected even if their perspectives are not wholly endorsed by everyone. The e‑Deliberation™ process is consent-based. In other words, we don’t try to achieve an idealistic consensus, but neither do we settle with a majority vote to settle differences. Following a consent-based approach, participants who have very strong disagreements with the deliberated outcomes have a chance to propose amendments that they could consent to, so they can support the said outcomes. Consent is tracked, giving a metric of whole group consent to the final deliberation outcomes. Conversations can be synchronous (in real time, face to face, conference call, or using online tools such as interactive mindmaps) as well as asynchronous (discussion forums, email, mindmaps with activity updates, chats, etc.). Participants develop a deep understanding of opposing viewpoints, discover common ground and extend new grounds for consensually based agreement. The result is a deeply deliberated resolution that is supported by everyone, with a strong bias for action. e-Deliberation is a trademark of e-Deliberation.com Inc. e-Deliberation.com is being developed by Canada-based e-Deliberation.com Inc.

From the website: In 1999 a team of students at The Evergreen State College developed the first prototype of an online version of Roberts Rules of Order. This was later presented at CPSR’s DIAC -00 symposium by John Adams and Matt Powell. In 2003 Evergreen student Nathan Clinton, working with Schuler, designed and implemented the system which is now ready for beta-testing with actual users. Clinton and Schuler named the system e-Liberate, which rhymes with deliberate (the verb). We of course hope that e-Liberate will prove as versatile as the original Roberts Rules. E-Liberate is intended to be easy to use. It employs a straightforward user interface which is educational as well as facilitative. The interface shows, for example, only the legal actions that are available to the user at that specific time in the meeting. (A user can’t second a motion when there is no motion to second!) At any time an “about” button can be clicked to explain what each particular action will accomplish thus providing useful cues that aren’t available in face-to-face meetings. Take a look here for a transcript of a sample session.

From the website: What is Open Assembly? OpenAssembly is a non-partisan site that looks to revolutionize the collaborative power of the internet. OA allows users to brainstorm a democratic platform, argue the ideal course of action, and reach consensus on those actions. These features were fully functional in the previous design, and we are using your feedback to reinegrate them into our new innovative design. * Discuss: Open Assembly features a forum where you can discuss issues that are of interest to you and deliberate over the pros and cons of those issues * Vote: Express yourself by declaring both your subjective agreement on an idea and your opinion on the objective quality. No longer must you upvote a poorly written idea that you agree with. * Decide: You can make timed decisions or poll the group. Rank the nominated proposals to identify and focus on the best or accept all the solutions the group suggests * Configure: Set the consent and reporting requirement that works best for your group, from traditional majority rule or complete consenus. Open Assembly is open-source software and its source code is on Github . Update : Open Assembly has been discontinued. In order to access the site, view an archived copy .

PICOLA (Public Informed Citizen Online Assembly) is a software application to support well-structured conversations. From the article in Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice (chapter 4, page 71): Project PICOLA (Public Informed Citizen Online Assembly) evolved as a parallel development project designed specifically to model the protocols of Fishkin’s Deliberative Poll® (Fishkin 1995). A front-end interface tied together software for both synchronous and asynchronous discussions as well as tools for registration and survey taking. Because PICOLA , like the Virtual Agora, was based on a complex programming environment that combined both commercial and open software tools, we were not able to sustain it past its initial five-year cycle. However, the successful use of the prototype has led us to conclude that the design of PICOLA constitutes a paradigm for these kinds of online tools. It stands as a ‘regulatory ideal’ for high telepresence, integrated deliberative e-democracy.

From the book Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice (chapter 4, page 78): PICOLA -lite After the backend for PICOLA could no longer be maintained, we developed an html-based ‘lite’ version that used a single, customizable interface. This tied together different programs like Adobe Connect for synchronous conversations, Microsoft SharePoint for an asynchronous discussion board, and SurveyMonkey for polling. A version of PICOLA -lite was used as a way to augment the face-to-face forum. We found that it is important to give participants an extra five days to ‘continue the conversation’. This allows people to add new points that they may have considered after the event, and its very availability prevents people from feeling frustrated that they did not get a chance to follow up (even if they do not use that opportunity). We also experimented with what we called ‘Alumni Assemblies’.9 In this case, PICOLA -lite was the only way to bring such a dispersed group together.

Synaccord is a structured online deliberation tool that utilizes popular voting on problems and solutions in order to determine the most pressing issues and the best way to tackle them. Merging the words “synergy” and “accord,” the name represents a marriage of “the beautiful thing that happens when people get together and do more than they could individually. An accord is a harmonious agreement.” Online deliberation with Synaccord is meant to, at once simulate in-person processes, while also overcome difficulties of organizing in-person participation (bringing together people from remote locations in a low-cost manner). Synaccord offers some of the following solutions to tackle the challenges of online debate: validating identities, requesting relevant demographics, structuring discussions, distributing participant into small diverse teams, upvoting best ideas, keeping participation demographically balanced. To ensure each idea receives fair and balanced consideration, participants are shown a few random ideas to compare with it before commenting or voting. To keep discussions civil, participating members provide feedback on each other’s posts and vote for the best ideas, allowing the better ones to surface. Demographic information is provided by participants only as a means to ensure diverse participation. A demo site of the tool can be found here . Introductory Video Synaccord LLC was formed in late 2015 and is based in Irvine, USA .

WebDialogues is a platform for targeted discussions among public agencies, policy-makers, subject experts, and citizens. WebDialogues’ online environment enables organizations to conduct conversations efficiently and independently through key features such as, libraries, panels, participant registration, polls, and summaries. How does it work? WebDialogues take place over 1 to 10 days on a website that reflects the look and feel of the host organization. They follow a structured, yet flexible, agenda with daily topics and discussion points that focus the conversation. Facilitators guide the discussion and panelists serve as subject experts. Additional dialogue features include a library of balanced resources, online polls, daily discussion summaries, and a categorization capability. Registration and evaluation forms capture participant demographics and feedback. Planning, content, and communication templates facilitate management and production. WebDialogues is a part of WestEd’s Evaluation Research Program ( ERP ) based in Washington, DC. The service has since been discontinued by the developer.

Designed by the non-profit organization, Citizens Foundation in 2008, Your Priorities is a platform allowing people to submit ideas and debate them. Ideas with the most support (determined by up and down votes) are elevated to the top. Aside from popularity, users can also filter discussion topics by latest posts and most debated. Your Priorities has been used various projects, including participatory budgeting in Reykjavik from 2012 to 2015, and the Estonian People’s Assembly, Rahvakogu , among others. From the Guardian : “In Reykjavik, Iceland, up to 40% of citizens use the platform and the city council has committed itself to discussing and implementing the most popular ideas on monthly basis.” As of January 24th, 2018, Your Priorities hosts 69 communities with a total of 12,997 registered users, who have generated 6,526 ideas and 11,294 comments. The website is available in 12 different languages. The source code is open source and available on Github .

Zilino is a web-based solution for hosting deliberative online forums and other types of well structured, well facilitated participatory processes. Zilino is built specifically for the purpose of dialogue and deliberation. Its modular toolkit approach enables practitioners to create a broad range of custom engagement experiences. The core modules as listed on the features page are: Zilino Logbook – moderator announcements and group updates Zilino Library – resource sharing and document upload for collaborative learning Zilino Plenary – whole-group discussions, incl. structured theming Zilino Roundtable – small-group dialogue and breakout sessions, incl. collaborative note taking Zilino Pulse – polling and voting, incl. rank ordering and range voting Zilino Storybook – storytelling and story sharing As of September 2013, Zilino is in closed beta. Registration is required to create and configure a project space with custom headers, color palettes, and URL . Recruitment of participants can be done through administrator invitations, peer-to-peer invites, or by open sign-up. Zilino is being developed by San José, CA-based Intellitics, Inc . You can follow @zilino on Twitter, like Zilino on Facebook or add Zilino on Google+.