contestability assumes 
    an empowered, articulate citizen who is willing and able to contact and enter into debate with a representative of the city
    a representative of the city who is willing and able to listen to a citizen's appeal and act on it
individual grievances should not lead directly to system changes -- that is undemocratic
contestability runs the risk of giving resourceful citizens an outsize influence
direct participation and self-management have the problem that citizens are not constitutionally accountable for their decisions
    they do not represent anyone but themselves
the people who make decisions (aldermen) are not the same as those who build the systems, so with whom should citizens enter into debate
    aldermen lack understanding of the systems
    developers lack accountability to citizens
    dialogue should be designed
plan for bi-annual citizen panel: same issue of lack of representation
``participation dragon'': how can people really have meaningful influence
``technological complexity dragon'': how to ensure participants have sufficient understanding
commons approach (De Waag), citizen science approach, letting citizens build their own systems
    solves lack of trust in institutions
participation ladder: more influence also means more responsibilities for citizens
    potentially also making them liable for system failures
    commons approaches complicate liability
commercial partnerships use contracts to take care of liability, commons-based approaches do not