[MG] Wise Use of Funds Raised

Stephen Coffman sungaia3.14 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 20 23:56:28 EDT 2013

Thanks for responding Ned!

On Jun 20, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Ned Conner wrote:
> Ned> The organization must encompass three very distinct scales: team, community, population. ... Yes?

Yes. I would also say it must encompass scales geographically: local, bioregional, global.

> Ned> I have a problem with "widely supported". I think that we should instead go with "deeply supported". Rather than using popularity as the basis for choosing which proposals to reward and which projects to fund, I think that we would be better off using rational discourse outcomes as the basis.

I'm not clear on the difference between the two. I think ultimately we are talking numbers (votes)....other wise we get into having "deciders". We have to trust the collective mind (or the common body) to guide itself toward the most favorable outcome. Rational discourse (mind) is useful....but so is the irrational (heart and gut). The network will govern itself if we set it up so it's free to do move with both.

> Also, the funded projects will produce implementation outcomes. By establishing feedback loops from those outcomes to the proposers, we can have a much healthier and more reality-based decision system. It is not good when proposers can reap benefits for proposing policies and plans and projects that subsequently turn out badly for Humanity, Nature, and Future Generations.

"Implementation outcomes" will always vary. In my mind, the closer we get to full participation, the more likely we are to have a favorable process and outcome. 
The more interesting, fun and empowering it is...the more people will want to be in the game.
Feedback loops would be numerous and ongoing. 
Proposals would go through a whole cycle of presentation, analysis, discussion, feedback, collaboration, reworking, and fine-tuning....prior to implementation.

> Ned> Yes! I am a really big fan of fun. However, the term "crowd-sourcing" in this context makes me nervous. If it means "anyone can propose anything, on equal footing", then I am comfortable. If it means something else, what does it mean?

Anyone can propose (or support) anything.

> Ned> I would suggest that we adopt the *proposal* as the formal unit of analysis and action with respect to funding. Each proposal would be the work-product of a team project (or in some cases a multi-team project).

Yes...everything begins with a proposal. I would say that an individual can make a proposal...or a group. If it gains traction and support, it continues to move through the process. 

> The process of preparing and proposing a proposal might include creating a network of web pages, and might also include other sorts of activities and creatings as well.

That would be up to the proposer(s). Much like Kickstarter, it's up to the individual/group to get the ball rolling. If that means creating a network of webpages...or what ever...then they could do whatever the current iteration of the *process* allowed.

> Ned> I agree that each individual should/must be free to "like", watch, make pledges, "share", and help develop, entirely as the individual sees fit. I do not agree that we should use voting to make public decisions. I think that we will be better off if we choose to use rational discourse (without voting) as the means through which to collaboratively make public decisions.

At some point the network will need to decide what gets funded and what doesn't. There will need to be *criteria* for that decision. If we get into allowing subjective interpretation, then there will likely arise vested interests and power struggles....more of the same. That *criteria* may or may not be a simple vote. I'm open to others thoughts on this.  Either way the collective mind must be allowed to trust it's own empowerment at the meta scale. The creativity, wisdom, and synergy that would show up is I believe unprecedented....and perhaps even unimaginable. 

>   Stephen> *Meta-governance* drives the process....makes it
>   easy...keeps it clean, organized, and open. 
> Ned> I definitely agree with this sentence, but at the same time, I confess that I have no idea what you mean by it ... :-)

I'm not sure I do either :-) 
It's a snake eating it's tail kind of thing. The process drives the process....continually re-organizing itself.
In my mind meta-governance is a system by which we direct ourselves....together....using a self-relective, self-organizing process . It's a platform of realization from which we collaborate as creative beings to make choices with outcomes that affect the greatest number in the most positive way possible.

> Ned> As a matter of principle, as a matter of establishing and nurturing the energetic vibrational "signature" of the democratic mindset in society, I would suggest that we be very intentional and very thorough in not formalizing or institutionalizing manifestations of the "master/slave" mindset in our social system designs. The mindset that says "they need us to take care of them" is the same mindset that says "they need us to steer them". Slavemasters quite often genuinely see themselves as doing good.

Hmmm...not sure what you mean by all of that. I'm thinking more of a logistical/operational oversight situation. Making sure that the website doesn't crash and stuff like that. 

> Ned> Though I can understand that such an arrangement might have some theatrical value, I think that we will be better off if we spread the business of proposing and deciding across the entire year, and don't connect it to the partying. Partying is good, but business is business. And, business is fun. When I have worked hard to submit a proposal, I want action to be taken on the submitted proposal within a week, no matter when I have submitted it during the year. It would be a horrible waste of valuable momentum and motivation to make me wait months to find out what I need to do next with respect to the matter of my proposal.

Awww...you're no fun!  What could be better to celebrate than having achieved that level of global synthesis?

> Ned> Remember Blinap? Blinap is the only decision system design that I know of that can accomplish at the scale of populations what you are suggesting here: "Proposals reaching those criteria decided on by the network get funded and awarded." If you have in mind or know of some other decision system design that can accomplish what you are suggesting here, I would definitely like to see it.

Never heard of Blinap. I'm not a developer. 

> Ned> In my universe, anything that can be proposed, can be proposed: projects, processes, objections, problems, policies, plans, priorities, profiles, discoveries, inventions, news reports, literary works, entertainment recordings, product designs, mathematical proofs, software code modules, facts, predictive models, predictions, worldview elements, analyses, appraisals, investigation findings, and so on (and on). Any of these types of proposals may be worthy of funding when they meet the criteria decided on by the network.

There could be numerous names/types of proposals. It makes sense to me to keep it simple.

> Ned> In a popularity-driven system, proposals would reach a threshold of agreement (defined by a quorum rule together with a vote-count-percentage rule, or some such). In a rational discourse system, agreement would be reached at the point that there were no unresolved disagreements.

It could be that *likes* and *dislikes* are both accounted for in the *vote*, (the *dislikes* being indicative of "unresolved differences").

> Ned> I am definitely in agreement with the notion of radical transparency, and of tracking everything and making it available. But at the scale of the global population, tens of millions of proposals will be made each year, ranging across all fields of human endeavor and interest. Not sure that even just access to all of that will fit on one page. We may need a library/database rather than a document. (This may be why I am experiencing the cold chills of dread. "Document" feels a bit top-downish and bottlenecky, given how big and diverse and active the repository will eventually be.)

Yes, I'm using *document* loosely to mean a record. I like library/database. Obviously, whatever we call it,  it would be huge.

>  Stephen> If I had to choose between existing templates/models I
>   would combine Facebook, Kickstarter, PayPal, the X-Prize
>   Foundation....then add in a little TED and some Burning Man. 
> Ned> Interestingly (now that your post has highlighted it), I am noticing that none of those platforms offer any significant support for reaching public decisions through rational discourse at the scale of populations, nor would any combination of them offer such support.

I wasn't suggesting such.

>   Stephen> It seems to me that it would need to be it's own entity in
>   order for it to adequately surmount the possible influence any
>   vested interests. 
> Ned> If by separate entity you mean that the network/platform/process should have no connections to or dependence upon existing corporate or government systems, I heartily agree.

Corporations and governments are made up of people. Any group participating would be required to fully disclose any relationship the individuals have outside of being involved in the *network*.

>   Stephen> I feel there should be an *emphasis* at the beginning to
>   encourage sustainable co-creative awareness and evolution. But those
>   can be very subjective projections. At some point those who develop
>   it will have to let it go and trust the collective mind to
>   intelligently self-organize, regulate and maintain itself. 
> Ned> Yes. Absolutely.

More information about the Start mailing list