Talk:Collaborative governance

From Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people
Revision as of 00:20, 30 November 2010 by Wb2trf (talk | contribs) (Why only consensus?)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

how will government pay employees if governance is collaborative? ....? Wikademia

Reputation. Karma points.... Note, this latter is a type of currency. And also, participation can be rewarding in itself if the system is designed correctly. Salaries are a rather Old Paradigm way of motivating participation, coarse at the very best. Marcos 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
But current systems still require $$ to pay the bills. How will the switch between these sorts of systems take place? Wikademia
A couple of answers:
  1. In the short term: a currency exchange system that will reflect the comparative value within the network to the trust/value out in the physical world.
  2. In the long run: Society organizes itself differently, centered around mutual trade. Physical locations reflective or more optimal configuration.
currency exchange.... so something like crowdsourcing? Wikademia
Hmm, I don't think crowdsourcing is the right analogy. I'm suggesting an actual exchange between karma and $ would occur. Something like that already occurs with online games, most notably Ultima Online which (accounting for the hours of game play to acquire or make important objects and auctioning said objects on eBay and such) has an effective GDP larger than some third world countries.
The right analogy here is probably the open company. — Ed Pastore 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think something like loose associations of individuals working toward a common cause (with common assets) would occur. The Hebrew Kibbutz comes to mind -- self-contained societies governing themselves. Marcos 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
We're not at the scale of mass governments yet; more the governance of small communities. But in either regard, there could (possibly) still be regular bureaucratic employees. The collaborative governance model (currently) is primarily focused on the decision-making process. That is, a replacement for the board of directors of a nonprofit, or the legislature/council/board of a government body. — Ed Pastore 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why only consensus?

I understand why consensus is wonderful and other forms of social decision making are somewhat coercive, but I don't think that there is much reason to believe that edemocracy will ipso facto actually abolish the practical reasons why societies sometimes choose other methods, such as "majority rule". Is the bias against majority rule, as one alternative method, so strong here that advocates for this metagovernment project would recommend not providing mechanisms for its operation if, by consensus perhaps, people wanted to adopt majority rule as a decision method? — Wb2trf

By forcing consensus, one drives the debate into further elucidation, synthesis, and resolution -- the idea that given all the information, people can generally find agreement because we aren't that fundamentally different in our desires for fairness, etc. In addition, if consensus/resolution isn't forthcoming it probably means the proposition is poorly presented or imbalanced in some vague way; forcing consensus forces more critical thought. See synthesis for more thought on the matter.... Marcos 06:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not opposed to exploring/allowing-for other decision rules, and I believe some of the member projects either allow for them or are neutral (i.e., they make the engine, but it is up to the implementers to determine when something is "decided.") However, the biggest problem with majority rule is not its "tyranny of the majority" aspect but its poor fit to an open-ended, continuous system. If everyone can vote on everything, and you have numerous competing proposals for any particular issue, then when can one thing be said to have majority support? For example, imagine there is one issue in a small community (~100 people) which has three proposed solutions. Two proposals have two votes each, and another has five votes. Should that proposal be implemented? Then what if two more people come along and vote for one of the lesser proposals? As Marcos noted, in an open system, synthesis makes more sense. Instead of taking the one proposal that is slightly more favored at one moment, there should be something to bring the ideas of diverse proposals together to make a lasting and accepted solution. Consensus builds synthesis. And in instances where people cannot reach consensus, then maybe they just don't need a law on that issue yet. — Ed Pastore 11:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, but I would like to argue for the decision criteria neutrality of the technology as a basic principle. The technology should be unbiased with respect to the decision criteria ultimately selected. All default rules would be open to change based on their own amendment rules. This means that if there is consensus to switch to majority vote, or vote by an expert panel, or vote by a sole judge, or by a series of such steps, the technology is indifferent, merely providing the capability. Furthermore, the default rules about rule change should be selectable by the creators of the instance. My argument would be that the conceptual barriers to adoption of any egovernance project are large enough without burdening the basic concepts with purely political change, change that is not intrinsic to the change in media. I think that if you try to insist on the primacy of consensus it will be a stone you cannot carry. Wb2trf 00:20, 30 November 2010 (EST)