 | SD-Governance | 57 Members |
| Our Space will be centered around governance of our network, governance of our future civilizations and financial sustainability. | 21 Servers |
| SD-Governance | 57 Members |
| Our Space will be centered around governance of our network, governance of our future civilizations and financial sustainability. | 21 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Oct 2018 | ||
 mhpanda | A quick reform in voting that I would like to bring up: Through the past several hundred years, voting has generally been limited to a choice between one party or another (not refering to the current concept of political parties). Computer technology offers an alternative to this. There is no longer any reason why voters should not be able to cast votes for ALL persons whom they would support in a givern office. It would even be possible for voter to list votes on a gradiant scale, showing strong preferences, moderate acceptance, as well as general dislike, and "veto" categories. Such a sytem would ensure that those who assume office have the strongest faith of the overall constituency. | 16:03:46 |
| mhpanda | For some applications, the further possibility of a continuous "rolling" or "floating" vote would work as an additional reform. Although this would require a constantly maintained pool of candidates, it would ensure that the persons in office are those best representing the wills of the overwhelming majority. This might not be manageable for all offices, but it might be vital for a few. | 16:07:24 |
| mhpanda | Quickly addressing the apparent inconsistency between absolute individual sovereignty and delegated representative authority: 1)The individual choses whether to become/remain a constituent. If not a consenting current constituent, the system of governance can not be applied to that individual. 2)The constituency determines which powers are granted to which offices, and should always maintain this decision making power. 3) There should be a mechanism by which the constituency can, at any time, overrule the representative government. 4)The powers of governance shall be strictly defined and limited through legislation, which 5) should be enforcible by the constituency at large; by force of arms, if necessary. 6) The enumerated powers of the representative government should be as limited as possible, with powers/authority as fully distributed as possible... each power granted should be tracible to an act of authority universally granted by the constituency (this means that each constituent agrees from the beginning with a given root of delegating responsibility to a representative; and, every additional constituency must consen to that system... it also means that no act of governance shall be valid unless it can cite at least one such unanymously consented root). | 16:23:34 |
| 6 Oct 2018 | ||
 Patrick Donovan | In reply to @mhpanda:matrix.orgbelatedly: yes, Google Drawings are created in Drive in the same way as docs or sheets (I think the phrase "natively supported" applies?). draw.io is the 3rd party equivalent | 20:50:48 |
| 10 Oct 2018 | ||
 dweissglass joined the room. | 21:48:19 | |
| dweissglass | One problem for the balance between personal sovereignty and representative authority that you are proposing mhpanda is the need for something like contract enforcement. This is going to be an issue particularly for principle #1 - at least as phrased. You'll need a mechanism to hold people to agreements made while they were a member of the constituency (and so consenting to whatever systems of contract enforcement exist) even if they choose to leave, else they might make agreements, take payment, and disappear from the community. I think you can square this by allowing the governance system to enforce agreements (and other similar prospective commitments) over non-constituents so long as (1) they were constituents when the agreement was made and (2) the agreement was made with the understanding that it would be enforced by the governance system. | 21:59:34 |
| dweissglass | (also - hi, and sorry for resurrecting what appears to be an old thread, still getting used to riot) | 22:00:00 |
| 12 Oct 2018 | ||
| Patrick Donovan | In reply to @dweissglass:matrix.orgwelcome! No apology needed. I like the points you made | 03:03:13 |
| 13 Oct 2018 | ||
| dweissglass | thanks! any chance there is a central doc somewhere with SD governance issues that need to be addressed? I'm very interested in lending a hand if I am able | 02:58:42 |
 stellarmagnet | Hi all - sorry I haven't had a change to engage in these great governance topics - i have been a bit busy working on governance software :). I think a good approach to governance is to start simple -- no need to introduce processes just for the sake of processes. some things will naturally evolve. for independent contractor / work by a single person, we plan to use a task/bounty system. for larger contracts - it is likely the relationship will be with an external corporate entity (if we are talking about actually building hardware etc) so you'd have more traditional contracts and they can be milestone based. I don't think we will be reinventing the wheel too much from that perspective. Our core governance at the moment is related more toward the Space Mission Activation Process and curating missions -- which you can read about in our SMAP Guidelines. Our Governance Paper has some higher level decision making frameworks outlined as well. | 04:42:00 |
| stellarmagnet | We hope to have regular governance meetings at some point to think through future scenarios and also to refine some of the processes we have outlined - always looking for people who want to help coordinate working groups like this. | 04:43:51 |
| 17 Oct 2018 | ||
| mhpanda | dweissglass: In approaching this issue from an assumption of individual sovereignty, governance becomes a mutually cooperative effort. The reason for enlisting in such an organisation is to attain some advantage, or to attain the opportunity to provide some advantage (it really is of no importance if such altruistic efforts of some level of selfish motivation or not). The "contract" is self enforced, because "breech of contract" would mean that the association is annuled: there would be no further exchange of advantage. | 13:20:41 |
| mhpanda | On the one hand, yes, there is some risk that an individual might take some advantage, and then leave before making a contribution in kind. OTOH: 1)When this occurs, the "oath-breaker" will be limiting the advantage they might gain from the system, and will no longer be eligible for further advantage before making their own contribution; 2)Under normal circumstances, the advantages received will be predicated upon initial contributions made; and, 3)Ideally, this system will NOT be based on any fiscal transaction, so you don't have a condition where you promise a service and receive payment... rather, advantages are gained through the mutual efforts, contributed simultaneously. | 13:29:46 |
| mhpanda | Also, don't worry... this isn't an old thread. | 13:35:49 |
| 19 Oct 2018 | ||
 pete.b joined the room. | 22:31:39 | |
| 24 Oct 2018 | ||
| dweissglass | In reply to @mhpanda:matrix.orgThanks for the reply. (1) strikes me as true in most systems, yet doesn't prevent fraud in general - the traveling snake oil salesman model seems well suited to get around this by planning from the start not to stick around. It isn't clear to me that (2) is possible - if Alex and Brian agree to a trade, one of them is going to be giving something to the other first. | 00:16:24 |
| dweissglass | (shoot - hit enter early - continuing) | 00:16:46 |
| dweissglass | Likewise, contracts are useful in many cases precisely because they allow for prepayment for future contributions - lawyers on retainer, etc | 00:18:40 |
| dweissglass | (3) is likewise very restrictive - if we can only use this system for cases where it is possible to exchange value simultaneously (it doesn't matter whether the value exchanged is monetary, money is just a stand-in afterall), this would stand in the way of the sorts of large scale prospective projects that we likely want to enable | 00:20:24 |
| 25 Oct 2018 | ||
| mhpanda | dweissglass: First, I should point out that, with a couple exceptions, the points that I have been proposing constitue more of a philosophical backbone to an approach to governance, and not the system of governance itself. These are sets of ideals that the constituency would have to agree upon. The actual mechanisms required for this to work would have to be derived later. I have put a lot of consideration into such mechanisms, but they tend to be long and detailed. I am still working on a tentative draft. This really isn't the kind of platform where I can go into depth (I am working on a separate website where these issues can be iscussed; if you are interested, I can let you know when the site goes live). That said, 1) As I said, yes, there is some risk. | 12:45:01 |
| mhpanda | dweissglass: Sorry, as I was saying, 1) As I said, yes, there is some risk. However, the snake salesman tends to run into trouble when information about his/her activities spreads. Communication will be one of the most important features of this governance, so after a first fraud, there will hopefully not be an opportunity presented for a second. Another point is that fraud occurs because there is an incentive or benefit to be gained. The main idea here is to create a GREATER incentive NOT to engage in fraud, or to otherwise cheat. You continue to get benefits so long as you remain in good standing, and the value of the benefits depends upon the value of your contributions. | 12:50:44 |
| mhpanda | dweissglass: 2) You are possibly correct, if you think of such exchanges only as single, independent interactions. However, these propositions are intended to reflect ongoing relationships within the constituency. An important aspect, here, is that this is NOT an exchange between two individuals. It is an exchange between an individual and a community. Importantly, the point that I made was that the individual contribution comes first. This is not unlike what usually happens within a business. No employer hands a new hire a check for the first month of wages, and says, "okay, I'll see you Monday". The employee is generally expected to show up for work, and complete the first week or two (at least) before receiving a paycheck. Now, this system would ideally not be quite so rigid, and there will likely be some benefits that are provided immediately... but such benefits would likely not incur an additional cost on the community, which would be "lost" if the person cheats. Such benefits might include access to fitness facilities, access to equipment on site, etc. | 13:04:57 |
| mhpanda | dweissglass: 3) There are actually three points here. The first is that monetary exchange makes it possible to exchange "markers" for value that far exceed virtually any real value that can be presented directly, so it makes it easier for people to cheat aggressively. Second, fiscal interaction tends to devalue the actual work done, and is directly responsible for phenomena such as extreme inflation. These points are actually relatively minor, though. The third point is that such exchanges promote the "zero sum" mindset, whereby everything gained comes at a cost. The actual key point is that his should be a community effort to achieve common goals, and to achieve more together than we can achieve alone. The kinds of exchanges I envision would be something more along the lines of, "come, help me build this house, and we can live in it together." Now, there (probably) will have to be an incentive to put in a quality effort when you build the house. This might be something along the lines of, "now, everyone who helps with this house will rank the quality of the contributions of everyone else, and the higher ranked contributors will get to choose their rooms first." This is just an analogy, of course. | 13:18:28 |
| dweissglass | mhpanda: All fair, I suppose. Without seeing the actual enforcement mechanisms in detail and practice, it is hard for me to tell whether this runs into the standard sorts of problems that this sort of approach brings (the cheater being one of them). I will point out that iterration only matters if I am planning to stay inside to community, but the snake oil salesman might just as easilly pick up and go to a new community after ripping of the first one. Likewise, the employee-employer example takes place in a system where contract enforcement is carried out by a third party - the employer can't just choose not to pay, else the employee can sue - even if the employee decides to up and leave the community. Without that sort of enforcement, you're asking the employee to take a lot on trust. The fact that one side of the agreement is an abstract entity/organization doesn't actually seem to make much of a difference. Again, the solution here would seem to be to enforce contracts as they were drafted even on entities or individuals that have since left the community or decided to withdraw from the agreement. You'll also need some system to prevent the community from breaking its agreements, to ensure that the community can't rob the individual either. | 16:32:06 |
 neutronstar | Please keep in mind the importance of immediate feedback. I've seen research studies that seem to indicate that criminality stems from the fact that some people can't think long term. Poverty seem to be one reason why the brain is unable to think long term, which makes sense since if your poor you don't know how to get food today. Tomorrow's problems are quite distant under such conditions. There are also some people whose brains are simply wired that way. So in the end: Immediate feedback is key to minimize criminality. The feedback does not need to be severe, only enough that you feel that crime doesn't pay. Which implies that you also need to do something about poverty to get rid of criminality. | 18:49:32 |
| 28 Oct 2018 | ||
| mhpanda | dweissglass: I think that I mentioned that the "snake oil salesman" defense is predicated on communication. This communication has to extend throughout the constituency. Regarding theemplyer/employee relationship, the "employer" IS the community. The delegated representatives would/should be subject to more restrictions than the population at large, and such regulation would be established by pre-established legislation. The "employee/owners" retain full authority to ensure that the representative government follows these regulations. | 10:55:11 |
| mhpanda | dweissglass: I will hopefully address some of my preliminary recommended mechanisms shortly. At least a simplified version. I should note that SD already embodies many of the prinicples that I have been proposing... if not exactly in the manner thatI would suggest for a broader civil community. | 10:57:38 |
| mhpanda | neutronstar: I quite agree, concerning feedback. However, feedback does not have to be negative. In fact, there are several decades of research data that demonstrate that positive feedback is far more powerful. Instead of convincing indivuals that "crime does not pay" by imposing penalties for crime, it is preferable by far to demonstrate that cooperative community involvement "pays" much better. NOT through monetary incentive, as research has demonstrated that monetary compensation actually tends to significantly reduce incentive to contribute, but through mutual benefits and community support. | 11:03:57 |
| neutronstar | I agree, I actually avoided the term "punishment" and used the more balanced term feedback for this reason. But I could have been more clear on this though... Crime does not pay could actually be solved by both benefits for following the law as well as punishments for not doing so. | 11:07:40 |
| neutronstar | Another thing that I feel some societies are lacking in is the ability to adapt to people's capabilities. Some people are simply unable to think in advance, and the society should therefore be able to adapt to this. The end goal should be that the person in question should not be able to be quilty of crimes solely because of who they are. I'm not speaking of simply not being punished for things that would be seen as a crime if other people did it, but actually not even be able to commit the crime to begin with. This is a hard to achieve goal, but still worth to strive for. | 11:14:07 |