Difference between revisions of "Charter/Draft2"

From Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "Following is a draft of the Metagovernment charter: ==Mission and Principles== ===Mission=== The mission of the Metagovernment project is to support the development of internet...")
 
(Rulemaking)
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
==Rulemaking==
 
==Rulemaking==
As Metagovernment intends to follow the development of internet tools that are themselves going to be used in taking official decisions inside the system, no single system should be chosen to take those decisions. Instead we should define a meta-process that permits the flexibility to test new methods as they are developed:
+
As Metagovernment intends to follow the development of internet tools that are themselves going to be used in taking official decisions inside the system, no single system should be chosen to take those decisions. Instead we should define a meta-process that permits the flexibility to test new methods as they are developed. Also as we are testing systems while we are also ruling over ourselves, it is important to give the space to test something that might not work. ANd if it does not work be able not to be tied by such decision.
  
 
(1) Each time a decision is to be taken, each person can suggest one (and only one) decision making system, possibly (but not limited to, the [[active projects|member project]]. After all the proposals have been presented, a voting is done among the Metagovernment members over which system to use. Voting should be done using the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method Schulze method]. Then the winning method is applied.
 
(1) Each time a decision is to be taken, each person can suggest one (and only one) decision making system, possibly (but not limited to, the [[active projects|member project]]. After all the proposals have been presented, a voting is done among the Metagovernment members over which system to use. Voting should be done using the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method Schulze method]. Then the winning method is applied.
 +
 +
(2) If after a decision is taken 50%+1 of the Metagovernment members feel that the decision was not representative of what the community wants or is against the Mission and Principles of the Community they can ask for a ''redo''. In which case the decision is nullified and the process is followed again.
  
 
NOTE: only Metagovernment members are allowed to vote, but any person can suggest a decision method. The method suggested should also clarify who is allowed to participate and in what way. If this is not clarified, the default will be that any person who wishes to participate can do so.
 
NOTE: only Metagovernment members are allowed to vote, but any person can suggest a decision method. The method suggested should also clarify who is allowed to participate and in what way. If this is not clarified, the default will be that any person who wishes to participate can do so.

Revision as of 08:20, 7 December 2011

Following is a draft of the Metagovernment charter:

Mission and Principles

Mission

The mission of the Metagovernment project is to support the development of internet tools which enable the members of any community to fully participate in the governance of that community.

Principles

  1. Governance of, by, and for all the people – Anyone may contribute to any collaborative governance structure.
  2. Openness in everything – All aspects of governance will be as open as possible, under the principle of radical transparency. All software and systems used to run administrations will be free, open source software and systems.

Modification of the Mission and Principle

To modify the Mission and Principles (or this line) the new version must be presented to the Metagovernment members. Then two votings must be held separated by at least 1 month. In each voting the previous version is compared to the new version. And each member is allowed to vote only once. If both times 100% of the voting members agree, and at least 80% of the members participate, then the new version is selected.


Rulemaking

As Metagovernment intends to follow the development of internet tools that are themselves going to be used in taking official decisions inside the system, no single system should be chosen to take those decisions. Instead we should define a meta-process that permits the flexibility to test new methods as they are developed. Also as we are testing systems while we are also ruling over ourselves, it is important to give the space to test something that might not work. ANd if it does not work be able not to be tied by such decision.

(1) Each time a decision is to be taken, each person can suggest one (and only one) decision making system, possibly (but not limited to, the member project. After all the proposals have been presented, a voting is done among the Metagovernment members over which system to use. Voting should be done using the Schulze method. Then the winning method is applied.

(2) If after a decision is taken 50%+1 of the Metagovernment members feel that the decision was not representative of what the community wants or is against the Mission and Principles of the Community they can ask for a redo. In which case the decision is nullified and the process is followed again.

NOTE: only Metagovernment members are allowed to vote, but any person can suggest a decision method. The method suggested should also clarify who is allowed to participate and in what way. If this is not clarified, the default will be that any person who wishes to participate can do so.

Minor decisions

Day-to-day activities may be handled by individuals ad hoc, or more formally by individual employees or volunteers of the organization. Any decision made by an individual must be publicly documented and can be overridden by the process in Rulemaking #1.

Modification

The Charter can only be modified following the rules presented in the charter itself. Modification of the charter, excluded the Mission and Principle section, can be done by two voting following the procedure presented in Rulemaking #1 spaced between them by at least 1 month and where the exact same new version is selected.