[MG] Secret Ballots
epastore at metagovernment.org
Wed Jun 2 17:09:24 EDT 2010
On Jun 2, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> It is kinda ironic to see the apparent disagreement on this point
>> on a
>> listserv that places high value on synthesis. It also seems to
>> assume a
>> false either/or choice, when it would seem that both/and should be
>> obvious aim, depending upon the wishes of each voter him or herself.
> [[Ed wrote:]]
>> One of the biggest obstacles to synthesis is that we *are* only given
>> a yes/no choice on issues, instead of being able to work together to
>> make a solution that works for everyone.
> While this is generally true at some levels, it cannot be true at all
> levels. The issue of timing and *need* requires decisions without the
> luxury of consensus or a (both/and) grey middle. Ultimately that is
> what the executive branch is charged with doing, for example. Make a
> "gut" decision and live with the/any consequences.
The issue of "urgency" has come up before, for example at:
and my opinion is that it is a red herring.
First, most Metagovernment projects are not starting as massive
international or international projects; they are more focused on
small organizations. The sort of crisis that a small organization may
face usually does not entail life-or-death immediacy.
But more generally, I think that urgency itself is a question of
consensus. Is there a consensus that there is an urgency in the first
place? If not, then what need is there for action? If there is a
consensus that something must be done right away, then people who are
used to operating under collaborative governance systems should be
able to reach a speedy consensus. If they all agree that something has
to be done, then they are going to be much more willing to figure out
what that something is.
Further nuance is provided at the above link. (Most notably, that
collaborative governance does not preclude leaders, only *empowered*
More information about the Start