Startup/Organization/Proposal 2

From Metagovernment - Government of, by, and for all the people
Jump to: navigation, search

While many people in this project share a common vision for Metascore, this project might better serve the end goal of open governance by being a true meta-organization. That is: instead of being one of the many online governance projects, this group is already well on its way to being the coordinating group for all of those projects, as is emerging in Standardization.

So I would like to propose that the original software development group continue as the Metascore project, and the larger group of groups be called the Metagovernment project. This "new" group would not be as much of a formal organization as a "tribe" or coordination group, where all the great ideas of the various projects can be bounced off each other and promoted together.

This is not meant to in any way diminish the great work we've done on Metascore. I still think that its focus on a distributed model and a consensus-through-synthesis mechanism probably is the way to go. But there is no reason why this open, global group can't embrace all the other projects as well, and let Metascore benefit from that coordination effort.

To be a coordination group, we would have to revisit the Basic Principles. I would suggest that we make the first two principles the Basic Principles, while the next two would remain with the Metascore project but become Suggested Principles for the Metagovernment project.

The Mission statement would remain similar... perhaps something like: "The mission of the Metagovernment project is to promote the development and use of software which can act as the primary governance mechanism of any community." And I think the Vision statement would not change very much at all.

We would also have to do some re-writing of the website to make it more inclusive of the diversity of projects we'd like to encompass (using NationBuilder, Vilfredo, Votorola, DemocracyLab, Telematics Freedom, and Metascore as the basis for defining the expanded group). I would also suggest that we revisit the word "open source governance" and try for something a little broader... perhaps just "open governance" or "online governance."

While there would be a lot of work involved... it would be work that we *all* could do. The current project is hampered by reliance on overtaxed developers to come up with software which can take us to the next level. Meanwhile, there are a lot of other people who want to contribute to the project but don't have the means/ability/time to contribute to the code. If we re-form as the coordinating group, there are suddenly lots of tasks that many people can perform, such as:

  • re-thinking and re-writing the website (which involves a lot of sub-tasks, including the above)
  • inviting more projects into the fold
  • working on the particulars of inter-project coordination (which has many sub-tasks)
  • outreach and promotion to small communities (to adopt *any* of the group's softwares) by sending an invitation
  • continuing the great philosophy, discussion, and brainstorming that has been conducted on this list