1. In brief, conflicting views would be represented by providing a platform for discussion, and not the discussion itself (all the gory details are on the Project One Overview page). As far as making certain that all sides are represented: that is something that comes from maintaining neutrality and working to engage all of the players – an important part of our plans for Community building.

2. Success will be measured by a number of factors, but primarily by the number of users and by feedback from those users on each solution. The details on how this would work have been well-developed yet, but that’s the gist. If you have ideas on this, please contribute them on the Plan page

3. Details on funding can be found on the Foundation Funding page and the Project One Funding page. In brief however, no funding would be accepted from governments of corporations in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest, leaving the burden on the prime beneficiaries of the service: constituents.

4. As described in detail on the Statement of Need page, this all started with the realization that there is not currently effective way to reach your legislator and know that the message will be heard unless you are willing to devote significant time to hanging out on Capitol Hill.

I hope this fills in some gaps. If you look at the resources I mentioned above and find them missing, let your voice be heard in that section.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

1. How would you equally represent conflicted and diametrical apposed views fairly and equally?

2. What is success for you? What are the metrics you will use to measure success?

3. Even non-profits need money to cover operating costs. Who pays for this?

4. Why is this forum more important/better/more effective than simply writting a letter to a legislator?