[MG] Striking at the root

alex at twister11.de alex at twister11.de
Sat Feb 18 18:13:55 EST 2012


Votorola has the difference Bridge and i hope, that it's possible to start
a thread of discussion for every DIFF ..these discussions should enable
antithesis and analysis and stuff... and in the end hopefully the
difference is resolved and if not, at least participants of the discussions
know why.
Thats why i told conseo that i think its useful to add a button to every
DIFF in the horizontal difference bridge layout where you could directly
discuss that specific DIFF.

by the way - the link you gave me is a starting point, but its too vague.
there are different levels of urgency and importance of decisions.
like ... buying pencils by using money or credibility that belongs to a
group
like ... buying a big machine or spending ressources to build a new product
...a new house... whatever
like ... creating guidelines
like ... creating general rules
like ... ...
u know, the point is, some decisions should be made by independent persons,
some decisions should only be made by consensus
if everything is decided via consensus, it creates information overflow and
wastes a lot of time, if nothing is decided by consensus, it creates a lot
of negative side effects or chaos.

there are alternative approaches to creating alternativ companys
like the "agile movement" or like "sociocracy" or "holacracy" or elements
like "karma points" from open source developement and many other things.

what about a group that puts in a lot of effort to create something. maybe
there is another group next to that group that created that something maybe
even in the group that created something, there are experts and people who
are new or who only put in a little effort... what rules to use to
distribute the earnings?

what about new people who want to join that group? who decides? only team
members? the whole company? only experts who know?
and what about "fire-ing people"? who is in charge? who should be allowed
to make that decision? the collective? only the people who directly worked
with the person under consideration? ... and what about long term assets?
who owns them? everyone? what about someone who joins the company ...will
he get an equal share? what if he leaves only a couple of days later?
...how much does you opinion count if you are new? (compared to people who
are long term members and already have put in a lot of effort to build the
status quo?)

everyone needs information to participate... which kind of information...
do they choose? does the collective decide by consensus who gets which
information?

what about legal requirements? maybe experts work on it and offer it in an
easy to use way... (like creative commons)
what about tax rules?
what about marketing? some are experts, some are not... should everyone
have a voice when it comes to marketing? wont that require a lot of time
investment by a lot of people?
what kind of decisions can markting make of their own? (like buing pencils
vs. creating big marketing campaigns?) how to decide what kind of "rights"
people have in a democratic fashion that could be changed or readjusted
easily by other members of the group when the status quo creates problems.

so time should be considered and importance too, where importance has to do
with the impact that decisions would have... how many people will be
affected and how many ressources will be required. ...what about opt-in and
opt-out mechanisms and when to use which? when are things mandatory and
when are they optional?
...what requires consensus and what requires or allows a coalition of
willing?

where is space for process or concept improvement/evaluation ... how to
incorporate lessons learned?

so many questions ....


On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Ned Conner <npconner at earthlink.net> wrote:

> **
>
> Ned> Here is a very brief discussion that outlines a possible programming
> project: CIDME<http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Collaborative_Governance_v2.0#Collaborating_To_Build_Consensus>.
> Is this the sort of thing you are looking for?
>  On 2/18/2012 1:17 PM, alex at twister11.de wrote:
>
> Yeah whatever - i don't care if it's a game or for real world examples...
> :-)
> what i'm interested in is concepts for tools and processes and how they
> might be solved. Thats na necessity for real world practice as its for a
> game that might be played.
> So if you/we have a game, i might take the mechanics to try them in the
> field, while u create a game and find players that play it...
>
> ...but before we can play the game or use the mechanics in the real world
> we actually NEED the mechanics :)
> And thats what i'm curious about. Before you can program a game, you have
> to think about what you want to program..
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> http://www.metagovernment.org/
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription:
> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
>


-- 
______________________
Alexander Praetorius
ICQ - 8201955
Skype - alexander.praetorius
Facebook - Alexander Praetorius
Diaspora / Geraspora - serapath / Alex P
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20120219/1325299e/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Start mailing list