 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 26 Sep 2018 | ||
 mhpanda | I hope that covers all the comments. I will read through the comments again to see if there is anything I missed, and respond at a later time. I will also go into more detail about my project, periodically. | 15:02:50 |
 rkzel | Thank you for taking time to address my concerns. The key point... actually, one more comment first: indeed we do delegate authority every time we ask a specialist for help: going to a doctor, learning to play guitar, all kinds of activity when we ask someone to do something on our behalf is delegating or sharing powers of decision. This is true. The difference, key and crucial difference is, as you said, ability to reclaim authority whenever we wish. There are cases, like in the middle of surgery, when reclamation of authority might not be such a good idea, but generally... governance without individual ability to opt out is just a fancy name for slavery. One might argue that possibility of opting out makes governance weak and ineffective, and it is of course true to some degree, but unless for example I can choose where my taxes go exactly (or how high they need to be, let's not get into THAT discussion :) - for example I wish to opt out from financing armies and weapons - unless I have at least that much control, my individual sovereignty is rather weak, proportionately perhaps... On the other hand strong forms of individual power can be abused, for example: | 16:42:53 |
| rkzel | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto | 16:43:07 |
| rkzel | Which was used to paralyze proceedings of governing body - which is obviously not ideal. | 16:43:51 |
| rkzel |
Definitely. Decentralization is great providing there is at least a protocol of communication between various authority centers. Communication network ideally. I guess (it would probably need to be described at length, I hope I don't make it too short to be meaningful) the difference between one, big, centralized organism of governance (which by necessity is split into plethora of departments) is that internal lines of communication are inefficient, clogged and burdened with power struggles resulting in poor performance, waste of resources, delays, etc. What I understand by decentralization is splitting authority without severing communication lines - so we still have ability to communicate on individual and, more importantly, group level, but decision making power remain close to home, so to speak. And if the communication network is based on computing power instead of unreliable human factor... ;) | 16:56:37 |
 neutronstar | I feel the need for synchronization is being mistaken as being a need for central authority. With proper synchronization and a good feedback mechanism to provide whoever has authority with relevant and immediate feedback, I don't see a need for central authority. Except perhaps for smaller areas, eg specific short term project. But that would mainly use efficiency as its main argument for central authority. | 20:16:18 |
| 28 Sep 2018 | ||
| mhpanda | There are a number of issues that can cause confusion. First, people do not always use a given term in the same way (what do we mean when we refer to "central authority", so there might be some need for us to clarify what we ean when we use a certain term. A second problem is that, even if we use a given term in the same way, the term might tend to express itself differently under different contexts (we might agree that a "central authority" refers to a central government body, whereas decentralization would be several bodies with coequal powers that overlap... a state government, then, would be a central authority in the context of that given state, but a decentralized authority in terms of a federation). | 15:08:50 |
| mhpanda | Sorry, have to go. | 15:08:58 |
| mhpanda | The third problem is that people tend to confuse concepts; or, they make associations between concepts that are not always valid. For instance in the response above that internal lines of communication are inefficient in larger centralized organisms: this is often true; but it is neither necessarily true, nor should it be true in a proprely designed system. In fact, perhaps the most important VALID reason for a central authority is to have an organized system of lines of communication that permit a more rapid, more direct, and better targeted flow of information. The power struggles you mention tend to be hallmarks of poor design/organisation. | 17:10:28 |
| mhpanda | There are different kinds of decentralisation. The decentralisation that you refer to could be described as task decentralisation. This tends to be beneficial, as it prevents an otherwise centralised government from overtaxing certain functions. You split up "zones" of authority in order to better organise workflow, and to reduce stress on any given "component" of a government. An important factor here is that task assignments should be well defined, and should not overlap with one another. | 17:15:37 |
| mhpanda | A less beneficial form of decentralisation is when you split off essentially the same "powers" to be shared by different "agencies". Here, we can see part of the problem when we have stratified governments with overlapping jurisdictions. For instance, if you have local police, city police, county police, state police, and/or federal law enforcement, all operating in a small area (especially along borderlines where you might have multiple agencies at the same level), there can be considerable confusion over which agency is responsible over which jurisdiction. Who does a person call to handle a particular problem? This is actually one of the reasons that the 9-1-1 service was created... you have a single number (a central authority) that determines the appropriate agency for a given service and/or jurisdiction. | 17:25:38 |
| mhpanda | One of the reasons for a central authority is that it allows a population to tie together resources that would not otherwise be available for large projects. For instance, no individual would be able to construct a system of roads to get them everywhere they might need to go. Small communities might be able to come together to make dirt paths to serve the local community, but even here, unless the community were very rich, it would never be able to install a (fully) paved network (not if it wanted to do other things as well, such as install an electrical grid, etc). You need resources to install road networks... and you need a LOT of coordination, but that is another topic. For a countrywide road network, you really need a central authority. There have been attempts to shift responsibility to decentralised local authorities, but you often have a lot of empty space between neighboring jurisdictions... and these jurisdictions don't want to have to contribute their resources beyond their borders. Also, with different jurisdictions, you have different levels of quality control... or lack of quality control. A central authority is required to ensure that, when decentralised authorities ARE "cooperating" to produce a network, that they are meeting the same standards of service. | 17:39:36 |
| mhpanda | Something that is important to consider: a central authority is not necessarily a core governing body with concentrated powers. A code of law is a central authority (you could, theoretically, draft a set of laws, then disband any legislative body that was gathered to make them). A national electorate is a central authority. | 17:45:03 |
| mhpanda | Slightly on a tangent, there is an important reason for a representative authority, central or otherwise. In a large, dynamic, organisation, there tend to be a lot of decissions that need to be made regarding how to get things done. In a "pure" democracy, if everyone were required to vote on every decision, it would be quite impossible for them to inform themselves on all the relevent issues, debate the issues with one another, and finally make a vote... and then have the time to engage in the actual productive daily tasks. Representative government is just another example of specialisation. We have small, dedicated, groups of people that we charge with tasks that we do not have time to perform ourselves. | 17:52:07 |
| mhpanda | Unfortunately, we have not yet learnt how to delegate the tasks of government wisely. That is something we still have to work on. That is part of what I would like to do here. | 17:53:22 |
| neutronstar | 911 is a good example of what I mean with synchronization, I do not see 911 as an authority. | 19:34:11 |
| neutronstar | What I feel is important is:
There is probably more. This is what I could think of right now. | 19:51:09 |
| 29 Sep 2018 | ||
| mhpanda | This is what I mean about misunderstandings (people using terms differently). Synchronisation is a characteristic, or function, that is required in efficient operation. However, a simple open communication network can provide for synchronicity... which might or might not be sufficient. What is important about the 911 service is that it is granted decission-making powers. It is the service that determines who is assigned to provide which responses. This decision-making power makes 911 an authority. This is the exact same dynamic that makes NORAD or SAC an authority. The 911 service provides synchronicity... however, this is not all that the service provides. | 17:58:48 |
| neutronstar | As always it depends on how you see things. What I'm probably aiming at is that it is quite easy to know when 911 isn't doing their job properly. What they're supposed to do and in broad terms also how is well known amongst the public. They'll quickly get very upset when 911 fails. So one way of viewing it is that 911 is a good example of an authority where all my three points are fulfilled | 18:40:48 |
| 30 Sep 2018 | ||
| mhpanda | Let's try to approach this from another angle: what are the requirements for accomplishing tasks? First, of course, is identifying our objectives, and the inherent tasks required in obtaining those objectives (in short, IDENTIFY the tasks). Second, determine the resources necessary to achieve those tasks, and the resources available. This often leads us to the third requirement, when there are not sufficient resources immediately available to accomplish all tasks-- determine which tasks have the higher priority, and which might be prerequisites for others... this tells us which tasks to assign resources to first. You also have to go through a series of resuirements to handle the logistics of the resources, including acquiring resources that are not yet sufficiently available, getting resources where they are needed, etc. Moving along, there are times when you find there are a number of different options, requiring decisions as to which option(s) to take. This in turn requires having people who can list and analyse the various options. With complex tasks, you need to be able to delegate assignments, assemble cooperative teams, and coordinate activities (the synchronicity we spoke of). When you are talking about decision making, you need to have people who have the power to enforce these decisions. Very often, the decisions will be time sensitive, and/or they might require specialised knowledge to make appropriate decisions. To handle all of this, you need well defined and managed lines of communication. | 15:10:41 |
| mhpanda | Many of these requirements, by definition, involve an authority (not necessarily a "government", in the common sense of the term). This includes decision making power, including decisions for establishing priority. Authority is particularly required in enforcing decisions. Some requirements merely imply a certain level of authority, such as the authority to conduct meaningful evaluations and analyses; or to organise activities, without having people "step on one another's toes". | 15:22:10 |
| mhpanda | One confusing aspect is that it is possible, and quite common, to have centralised authorities that are nevertheless distributed. That is, there can be a central authority without a concentration of power. Authority commonly is expressed through many different operational aspects (for example: making rules, enforcing rules, making judgments regarding whether or not someone has violated a rule, etc; or, performing any of these activities in specific domains). However, it is quite common that diverse agencies are established to address individual aspects (the executive, judicial, and legislative branches; the FBI, the CIA; the various armed forces; etc). Sometimes it is not "decentralisation" of authority (technically, in political sciences, it is refered to as "devolution" of authority), but distribution of authority, which is preferable. OTOH, sometimes it is helpful to have a decentralised (devolved) authority available... but this should be addressed in specific, precise contexts. | 15:35:50 |
 Patrick Donovan | In reply to @mhpanda:matrix.orgYour third requirement sounds a little like what little I know about field triage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_triage | 18:29:52 |
| Patrick Donovan | dare i suggest the creation of a google drawing to hash out, in a systems engineering-esque diagram, a proposed layout for how the principles being discussed would translate to an fuctioning organization/structure? Taking 911 as an example, this could be a proposed structure for emergency services (at a lunar colony to spice things up) :) | 18:40:05 |
| 1 Oct 2018 | ||
| mhpanda | Yes, triage is definitely a fine example of this principle. Not just the third requirement though. Every mass emergency response requires a central authority. At first, this is handled remotely, with a dispatch centre rleaying instructions to the initial responders. However, as soon as possible, a temporary site command is established to handle operations. You NEVER have a devolved authority in an emergency, it is always centralised... however, you DO have a distributed authority-- in the medical emergency, you have a triage authority that labels; an on-site medical authority that treats urgent cases at the scene; a transport authority that organises incoming and outgoing ambulances, and ships "yellow-tags" to hospitals (as well as the urgent cases, once they are stabilised); an assignment authority to organise arriving responders; the emergency care authority at the hospital, receiving the "yellow-tags" and stabilised "red-tags"; a check-out authority to take the names of the "walking wounded"; a communications authority; etc. All of these are localised authorities, but only one authority holds responsibility over a given task. ALL of these authorities report to a more central authority that determines who will be responsible for what. So, in the end, you actually have ALL of the above conditions covered by the mass emergency response scenario. Even in lesser emergency response scenarios, you have the same need for a central authority... although sometimes it presents itself as a set of well established regulations and laws. OTOH, sometimes, the central authorities can have very precise and limited conditions... and several "devolved" authorities can exist simultaneously in response to separate emergency conditions being responded to. | 10:21:37 |
| mhpanda | There is a lot of modern interaction that I hae difficulty keeping up with sometimes. How does Google Drawing work? | 15:39:36 |
| mhpanda | Is Google Drawing part of Google Documents? Or do I have to access something different. Sorry about my typos... my keyboard appears to have an even more difficult time keeping up with me! | 15:41:39 |
| mhpanda | A quick note about devolved authorities: they are fine, so long as they don't interact. Once you get them interacting with one another, you generally need a central authority overseeing their interaction. Otherwise, you tend to get things like inefficiencies, "missed coverage", interference, and sometimes hostility. | 15:47:21 |
| mhpanda | In practice, as I said (much earlier), a central authority is often necessary. However, that authority can, and should, be limited, with as much authority being distirbuted as possible. It is actually possible for an entire constituency to be the central authority, with direct democratic vote being invoked, when necessary. Representative democracy would take over most activities for the constituency, but there should be a mechanism for the constituency to override any representative actions if it is determined (or suspected) that delegated representative powers have been abused. As much as possible, authority should be distributed among numerous channels, but with only one well-defined authority being responsible for any given aspect. Devolution is best left to operational teams that do not typically interact, but which ARE in a position to learn from one another's successes and mistakes. | 15:55:49 |
| mhpanda | I have some more in-depth suggestions, but I am not certain what would be the best method to present them. I am open to suggestions. | 15:56:53 |