Discussion of governance

This is right up my alley but it's been a crazy busy week, so I don't have much new or custom-fit input to offer yet.

I agree very much that any governance should be as lightweight as possible, and should optimally be managed peer-to-peer.

I advocate strict agreement-based p2p team management/governance of official media. Little known fact: I greatly prefer unofficial and informal agreements whenever feasible. However, I do think that official agreements are sometimes important. As I wrote in Agreement-Based Governance (partly inspired by the growing pains of CTA!):

Reasons for official agreements: The process of designing official agreements can help people to clarify and improve the accuracy of previously informal understandings. Officially documented agreements can greatly improve group information resources, especially for guests and newcomers, by creating searchable histories of mutually shared understandings.

Official agreements can also help greatly to prevent and to resolve serious conflicts. Persistent conflicts often arise from disagreements regarding the ownership or rights of use of physical, social and information resources.

Some of our most fundamental conflicts involve shared or potentially shared resources for communications and collaboration. For instance, what is the purpose and nature of a specific group? Where and how does that group meet, or share messages? Does anyone “own” meeting places, or shared data? Do shared resources and standard practices have any (intentionally or incidentally) coercive or restrictive qualities?

If such questions lead to persistent confusion, tension or conflict among the participants of a network or group, they may find it important to design official agreements.

So, my basic attitude is: if there's persistent confusion, tension or conflict, then develop official agreement(s).

I agree greatly with you @lynnfoster on developing close partnerships with real active groups who need OAE resources.

So, my basic attitude is: if there's persistent confusion, tension or conflict, then develop official agreement(s).

That makes sense to me. And is why I have been calling (banging on!?) about 'officially' launching the CTA, as an org with at least one official agreement; a shared purpose.

That makes sense to me. And is why I have been calling (banging on!?) about 'officially' launching the CTA, as an org with at least one official agreement; a shared purpose.

That's fine by me, if such a shared purpose can be effectively agreed upon. Also, frankly-- as someone who's been down this road more than once-- I won't get my hopes up about a shared purpose unless we can identify a clear actionable pathway and processes to realize the purpose. However, a shared purpose in plain language is IMO pricelessly valuable.

@lynnfoster Wouhou ! I totally agree with you ! I wanted to create a thread to say that.

One point I kind of disagree with :

What I personally want to see is governance by consensus-oriented processes that are designed to support the common good

I think sometimes it's good to take consensus decisions, but most of the time it's good to let people do whatever they want to do. Plus consensus create group pressure (group > individual), which I don't quite like (I don't like domination relationship), so I prefer to avoid it as much as I can.

But I think @gregorycassel answered to it by saying :

if there's persistent confusion, tension or conflict, then develop official agreement(s).

(quote from me) "What I personally want to see is governance by consensus-oriented processes that are designed to support the common good"

(@draft) "I think sometimes it's good to take consensus decisions, but most of the time it's good to let people do whatever they want to do."

To understand my intentions behind this, it's important to notice the difference between "consensus-oriented" and just plain "consensus". The idea of consensus, as we are well aware, means different things (emotionally as well as logically) to different people. Roughly, experimenters don't like being constrained by having to get people's agreement. Organisers don't like chaos. Etc.

One of the things that I haven't seen much discussion of is that different approaches to governance may be appropriate in different contexts, or at different stages. When we are at a stage of "letting 1000 flowers bloom", then fine, time for "do-ocracy" and consensus only in the sense of consensus of the willing. What I'm suggesting is that it needs some wise discernment to be sure when we are at that stage and when at another stage. I'm not presuming to supply that wisdom by myself 😉 It may well be better a case of the wisdom of the collective.

It also depends on how much resource there is. If people have loads of time to experiment, and don't mind their experiments being ditched, that inclines more towards do-ocracy. But it's not my experience that all experimenters are that egoless (myself included?) The more we need to be sure that our efforts are going to stick, to be adopted, the more need there is for a proper consensus. And, indeed, consensus-oriented processes can help surface knowledge, experience and wisdom that explorers may well value. "We tried that 5 years ago, and ..." can be extremely helpful and energy saving. Not everything is new under the sun. Sometimes it's just that we haven't searched widely enough.

So I don't agree with "most of the time", but I am very happy with "sometimes". It's both more even-handed and, I believe, truer to life.

Does it imply : Experiment things takes more time than not experiment things ?

(@draft) "Does it imply : Experiment things takes more time than not experiment things ?"

Not necessarily. If there is no need for coordination, free experimentation may be the quickest way to find a solution. That's where I see the value of "do-ocracy". But if we need to keep people on board, to prevent splintering, then free experimenting can simply waste a lot of time, reinventing wheels, failing to take into account the wisdom of experience, etc. And where different experiments result in conflicting standards, vocabularies, etc., that results in an extra load for translation. OK, in some situations that may be inevitable, but why not avoid it if we can?

What I'm advocating is a more nuanced approach to governance. It really does depend on the context, on the situation. It's not true that planning is always better, or conversely that free exploration is always better. And even recognising which situation we are in, and which approach to governance is appropriate, is not easy.

What is always worthwhile, in my experience, is listening carefully to each other, to what we have to say from our reasoning or from our intuition (and, indeed, from our feelings). Not only is that likely to result in collective wisdom appearing, but also it is likely to deepen and strengthen our interpersonal relationships, on which the strength and resilience of the collective is based.

Great stuff @lynnfoster very much in line with DivvyDAO.org and DigLife.com governance objectives.

We are applying small autonomous linked [team structure] based on sociocratic structure and consent, rather than consensus bases to be agile and scalable.

We are also applying self-management principles agreement-based p2p team management/governance @gregorycassel This is taking governance by consent to the limit. Nobody can tell anyone what to do.

Without organization self-organizing communities tend to become dysfunctional. Sociocratic organization is designed to foster collective intelligence while moving power to the edges. Research shows small teams work best. We should ask ourselves why not sociocracy and unless there is another structure that is better proactively form linked autonomous teams in a sociocratic fashion rather than allow dysfunctional organization to emerge.

DigLife we are developing a social ledger /diglife mattermost integration which visualizes the teams and activities in real time in an interactive holonic diagram, network graph and dashboard I thing we should try it here.

I don't quite get it : Do you use sociocracy or self management, or both ? Because I don't quite see how it can work together.

Yes we use both sociocracy and self management. Consent to a team activity can be considered having a P2P agreement with each the other team members. As log as the team has a lead, admin and link we give the team autonomy assuming the team members consent to whatever team governance is used for their operation or would not join the team. Delegation of final decision making down to the individual by sociocratic consent is encouraged but not enforced. We have norms over rules and do not dictate the nature of P2P agreements.

I suggest OAE and CTA participate in the Social Ledger Prototype Demo and Trial. I can create OAE and CTA teams there if people are willing to participate.

"I suggest OAE and CTA participate in the Social Ledger Prototype Demo and Trial."

I love the Sociocracy model and what your building looks great @jimwhitescarver :)

Can you explain a little more about what the groups that get involved in the demo/trial can hope to get out of it?

Good question. Trivially participants in the diglife Social Ledger Prototype Demo and Trial get a mattermost team, the real time in an interactive holonic diagram, network graph and dashboard showing connections and activities of the organization and across participating organizations. Tthe diglife dashboard allowing one to explore ACTIONS DOCS LINKS GOALS NORMS JOBS and CONTRACTS across teams.
Beyond that the organization gets to pick and choose what features they want to try and find which are effective for them. They may contribute to the evolution of the social ledger by suggesting features and integrations or developing their own. The social ledger might be used in combination with other integrations limited only to our imagination. It is hoped by our cooperation the social ledger may become part of a broader webhook/bot/integration ecosystem. Rchain.coop for example is investigating augmentation with AI bots and collaborative knowledge bases.

While diflife is fully committed to open source we are controlling access to the repo to those who join the development team until the prototype is stable and relatively secure. Participation in the demo is the only way currently for teams to try the social ledger hands on if they are not diglife members.

If it's possible to replace "circle" by "action" I'm all in ! I prefer the word action which I find much more concrete. What do you think @jimwhitescarver ?

There has been push back on the term circles so we use the word team rather than circle usually except when referencing sociocracy. There is a confusion of term in that there may be a team associated with each channel in a mattermost team so we call mattermost teams "domains". Team members are generally a subset of the members of a channel. "actions" are currently a type of "activity" in a team including ACTIONS DOCS LINKS GOALS NORMS JOBS and CONTRACTS. Anyone can commit to any activity belonging to any team.

I've added samples to the Social Ledger Prototype Demo and Trial doc which demostrate more of what exists today.

What do we do to participate in this demo? Note that I will not personally be able to do so until Tuesday, but looking around a bit, I did not find the how-to instructions. Yet to come? Or did I miss something?

For a little contrast with Sociocracy, without advocating my own Agreement-Based Governance model (which would be blatantly biased regardless), I quote a bit more of my own work:

Comparisons: Compared to the rough consensus of Sociocracy 3.0, and Holacracy, agreement-based governance is a minimal and generalized framework of consent-based specifications for creative governance. It's a framework for developing complexly adaptive written agreements in all social contexts: within groups, between groups, between individuals and groups, and peer-to-peer. It’s a framework for developing exploratory discussion and media-sharing networks, as well as work agreements and economic commitments.

I liked your agreement based governance very much and have advocated it in divvy and elsewhere.

The problem we are facing is everyone will never agree to a single form of governance leaving P2P agreement as the only solution for governance by consent. Any other rules can only be guidelines or norms.

Every style of sociocratic circle may use its own flavor of consent decision making. Hierarchical or delegated down to individuals decision making may be the consensus of the team. The consent process might only be employed for critical decisions like how decisions are made or accepting a new team member if the team wants that. Generic Sociocracy is compatible with being agreement based.

The norm in diglife is after questions and concerns are proactively solicited from every team member and there is a proposal addressing them it is passed if it is deemed "safe enough to try" and compatible with the goals/driver of the team and without objection. Objections are only valid if they reasonably challange safety or mission. Some circles are more strict than others about questions before answers before concerns before objections in rounds.

I believe the process has been rewarding in making better decisions evoking collective intelligence. It seems much more effective than arguing binary alternatives. It is successful in the diglife culture and might work here.

An important aspect of P2P agreement based governance empowering individuals is the ability for an individual to delegate responsibilities, authority and privileges to others. This ultimately allows principles of liquid democracy in addition to sociocracy and self-management. Self governance is self determined, not determined by committee.

An important aspect of P2P agreement based governance empowering individuals is the ability for an individual to delegate responsibilities, authority and privileges to others. This ultimately allows principles of liquid democracy in addition to sociocracy and self-management. Self governance is self determined, not determined by committee.

Delegation is an important function which is directly addressed in Agreement-Based Governance, but which I haven't (yet) addressed in much detail.

Thanks for sharing detailed thoughts regarding Sociocracy and diglife. I appreciate that!

It's been a while since I read your agreement based gov doc. It may suggest some /slashcommand integration enhancement to the social ledger.

At some point I would like to address delegation in the social ledger actively when the delegation of permissions or privileges to perform actions are enforced by the system similar to the set userid in unix. This would be quite useful for activities that have been integrated. I've been thinking of something like
/grant @user /command template
/as @user /command matching template.

At some point I would like to address delegation in the social ledger actively when the delegation of permissions or privileges to perform actions are enforced by the system similar to the set userid in unix.

I guess you mean that the system should automatically edit users' permissions and privileges according to official acts of delegating one's authority?

(That would probably be a good feature, from my perspective-- as long as users are clear about exactly which permissions and privileges they are delegating.)

it sounds interesting @jimwhitescarver but I'm not sure I fully understand what it all means - even terms like 'social ledger' are not clear to me - is there any chance you could define more of the Diglife terminology for 'newbies'? I'm sure it would help others too...

Also, I am still struggling to see how you think teams will benefit from using your system? I understand they will get access to the things you have built, and can hence play with them, but are you suggesting teams could / should use what you have built for their actual team organising and project management? Or somethinbg else?

You said:
"Tthe diglife dashboard allowing one to explore ACTIONS DOCS LINKS GOALS NORMS JOBS and CONTRACTS across teams."

These are also terms which could probably benefit from clear definitions - just so we are all 100% on the same page, but more importantly I'm not sure what the sentence means!?

Thanks
Oli