ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
SUGGESTED CONVERSATION TOPICSTotal
2
QUESTIONSCOMMENTS / NOTES (in order from left to right)
3
Who is "we" that is governing or being governed? What if "we" do not have a shared understanding or interest in governance what can "we" do? Can "governance" help a "we" become?
4
Reclaiming the word "procedures" from mechanistic thinking back to organic thinking -> Protocols
5
Statement/question: I work primarily with supporting entrepreneurs in redesigning their organisations to achieve their purpose. I’ve developed a theory of governance, that works in practice, that governance evolves as the organisation matures. So we start at autocracy (I’m in charge), and keep moving our way forward. As a crisis CEO, I usually wind up having to implement top down hierarchical governance in ‘change making’ organisations in order to bypass the gridlock of their supposedly advanced governance structures that are entirely inappropriate for dealing with an organisation in crisis, where good quality decisions need to get made quickly. I’ve joined this session because I’m interested in the potential for more effective forms of governance across the board, and the role that technology can have. Like Arthur, I’ve participated in multiple forms, and multiple experiments, including setting up political parties, and currently advising a new political party using block-chain to support direcAutocracy can be a very powerful tool.

Polymorphism... and the imperative for evolution.

GameShifting		http://emergingleaderlabs.org/gameshifting_overview
6
Jargon alert: As it relates to governance, by designing your system with divergent mutability rather than immutability in mind (synchronization only occurring in node-node interactions, without a central ledger or the need for monolithic versioning), you are enabling a system where information/value coherence only occurs via signaling a formed consensus - both nodes have to agree on something. In an organizational sense, this sounds a lot like autonomous syndicates because nodes have the agency to form any configuration or consensus in relation to other nodes. Within a government, for example, the nodes in question are those of citizens that may have a consensus opinion - i.e. Donald Trump = President of the United States. This allows for both transparency and exclusivity for groups. This fluidity is useful but it also creates vulnerabilities if a false consensus is created by actors manipulating nodes/agents (technologically or behaviorally) to change a perceived consensus. This is also an issue in our society that we struggle with. Are there technical or behavioral remedies available to preempting this issue?
https://medium.com/@artbrock/youre-certainly-right-that-technology-doesn-t-replace-communication-d4abcd2ad09b
7
8
I agree & have no big questions about the main points of the essay. Mostly curious about "1. Powerful Design Principles for Next-Gen Governance"
9
and
10
Healthy Feedback Loops: The 90% of Governance Beyond Decision Making
11
--but I don't want to add to the agenda, unless everyone wants to move beyond the article!
12
13
14
What are some simple ways we can experiment with new forms of governance together? (Maybe where the stakes aren't as high?)
15
16
^ per Ronen: group identity & group agency are a great topic IMO
17
18
In what ways are we reinventing wheels?
19
20
Is society ready for self governance? what would it take to get ready?
21
22
And what does transparency mean without an ideal of complete or total information? As the article mentions, transparency invokes the question of context and different, perhaps multiple domains of relevance...
23
24
distinct communities can peacefully co-exist and coordinate their activities
25
26
Didn’t want to post that in the main thread - wasn’t sure it was appropriate/usulef
27
28
how do we link up higher order structures where appropriate for say citi level, regional level , and higher order for contexts in which the natural scale of governance is somewhat larger?
29
30
What level(s) / aspect(s) of governance are we talking about. This might seem like a odd question, but it seems like there is a tacit and shared agreement/feeling about what we are talking about when we use notions like "governance", "community", etc.
31
32
i think the answer is all levels...an
33
34
reflection: "we" is an emergent effect of trying to govern?
35
36
heuristics....yes! fluid, adaptive, but guiding
37
jsut the way organisms cognitively know and are known by their environments
38
39
protocols are like initial premises for communication, then...
40
41
protocols, recipes & guidelines are by far my emphasis (instead of enforced rules and laws)
42
43
complete freedom and autonomy yields chaotic dynamics, constraints create complex dynamics...think countercyclical feedback loops
44
45
I may have missed some framing; I’m curious about what the constraints/contexts are for this discussion about governance. I’ve observed that governance forms change as the needs of societies (including families and organisations) change. As a crisis CEO, autocracy can be a useful tool. Apologies if this comment is out of sequence.
46
47
48
49
re: when things break down: good idea IMO to create protocols or (if necessary) rules for delegating ""emergency powers"
50
51
seems as though the technical infrastructures we're envisioning (opt-in, fork-friendly) would only be able to generate the type of spiritual leadership (influence without final authority) that joe attributed to gaddafi--which is precisely the sort of leadership that lends itself well to positive social policing
52
53
Emaline, do you mean that that sort of "spiritual leadership" lends itself well to being positively influenced by other participants? (I think so)
54
55
It lends itself well to being constrained/regulated by other opinions for a fairly representative spread of perspectives from within the group
56
So yes!
57
58
^ agreed (thanks)
59
60
bad actor is a term with historic value, but it's not a great term for engineering sustainable systems & communities.
61
Creating clear, effective communications tools & techniques can IMO minimize actors who participate without adding value to identified goals, OR who participate falsely.
62
63
I don’t think it’s necessary, desirable, or possible to completely suppress “bad actors” but to dampen whatever multiplying effect granted
64
65
^ I basically agree. at any rate, it's not practicably possible to design systems to totally eliminate any identified risks or harms.
66
67
Hey, can you link me to some of the schooling platforms? An important special interest area for me, too...
68
69
Signing off! Thanks, all, for a great conversation...
70
71
thanks Emaline!
72
73
going to take quite some time to digest all these thoughts...great conversation...wide plurality of ideas
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100