 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 28 Sep 2018 | ||
 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 |
| 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 |