[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Mark Rosst — 2006-09-29 21:20:42+0200

illegale wrote:

> Lomax wrote: > > echarp wrote:

[…] > > The way I’d generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after > > a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the > > like, would routinely have the right to make edits. If they abuse the > > privilege, a moderator could restrict their right. And that > > restriction would be appealable. The exact process would depend on > > the size of the org and its nature, but the ultimate authority, if it > > is to be fully democratic, is with the assembly as a whole, which may > > routinely delegate that authority.

Read more… / Lire plus…

>G: IMO, this is basic difference between Lomax and Marks aproach is that > Lomax is letting free process, ebabling autopoietic, selforganasing > basic unit uf humankind, human has possiblity to learn and grow, > participate and do a rebalance of political power towards > decentralisation which is good and possible in this very moment also.

-M: SD2-S is amplifying of these free, autopoietic, self-organizing processes.
SD2-S doesn’t add anything that is contrived or arbitrary.

>G: In the other hand SD2 is routine that might go wrong,…

-M: How?

>G:…as long as nobody tested,…

-M: The only way for it to be accepted is for it to be tested - therefore it will be tested by the time that it has large scale applications.

>G:…it can be hijacked and effort of individuals that base their work on SD2 can be banalised pretty heavily. So, my opinion is that we can not go this way in this very moment, at least we can not put bet on precisely SD2 as long as by letting basic principles of such free system combined with open source get alive, we can not go wrong. So, SD2 for testing and some not so important issues, yes. Basing the process, no.

-M: If your idea of a ‘free system’ is a mere communication network like Lomax’s FAs, then you have bodies with no decision making capability. You have nothing.

>G: BTW, there is an example for SD2 I could use right now. In open system > such as forum is in TOP communication with some TOP organisation, > concept of public could be measured on such way, in other words such > TOP organisation could put SD2 reprensetative to be included in exact > decision making process. In that way we can optimise such process and > develop others.

-M: OK. :-)

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

illegale — 2006-09-21 02:05:23+0200

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 06:00 PM 9/15/2006, echarp wrote: > >It’s rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much, > > actually, it’s huge…. > > The problem could be easily solved. If I knew where admin issue > discussion and policy resolution was taking place (I could find it, > I’m sure, but the whole point is that it should be easy), I could > watch the traffic. I could pick out someone who, it seemed to me, had > a good grasp of the issues, who might effectively represent what I > have to say. Now, right now, I might be able to email or otherwise > contact this person directly. So, informally, such a system already > exists. It is just not easy. “Open and transparent” does imply “easy.”

Yes. That part is not transparent, and we can not say is it open as there is no evidence for it :)

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >What is the qualification for modifications? > > Well consensus or the consensus of those delegated to make decisions > on behalf of the members, by consensus. Or, at least, by majority > approval. This should be on-going, i.e., a consensus at one time > should not prevent a new and different consensus from forming later.

What I can notice, any group of people can choose whatever decision making procedure they might find most satisfying for their activities. Those that are more delibrative and including might be slower, yet they might handle larger brain trust. So, it depends on specific needs.

> The way I’d generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after > a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the > like, would routinely have the right to make edits. If they abuse the > privilege, a moderator could restrict their right. And that > restriction would be appealable. The exact process would depend on > the size of the org and its nature, but the ultimate authority, if it > is to be fully democratic, is with the assembly as a whole, which may > routinely delegate that authority.

This part when you set fully parcipative decision process in definition of org, you can say that you have fully democratic organisation. This would mean that for an example sd2 or some other algorithm for decision making functions that good it can rebalance itslef, learn and grow.

What I can notice, current mechanisms such as slashdot is, are not such structures, yet they are trying to develop such procedure that wont need recalculations. In this moment, carmic whores as viruses find weak spots and do they work. So current big organisations have this part only as attachment for their inside decision making process.

IMO, this is basic difference between Lomax and Marks aproach is that Lomax is letting free process, ebabling autopoietic, selforganasing basic unit uf humankind, human has possiblity to learn and grow, participate and do a rebalance of political power towards decentralisation which is good and possible in this very moment also.

In the other hand SD2 is routine that might go wrong, as long as nobody tested, it can be hijacked and effort of individuals that base their work on SD2 can be banalised pretty heavily. So, my opinion is that we can not go this way in this very moment, at least we can not put bet on precisely SD2 as long as by letting basic principles of such free system combined with open source get alive, we can not go wrong. So, SD2 for testing and some not so important issues, yes. Basing the process, no.

BTW, there is an example for SD2 I could use right now. In open system such as forum is in TOP communication with some TOP organisation, concept of public could be measured on such way, in other words such TOP organisation could put SD2 reprensetative to be included in exact decision making process. In that way we can optimise such process and develop others.

> With a DP process, there is always > some kind of access to the top, through filters chosen by the member > being restricted. > > Non-DP organizations which would still satisfy the due process > requirements to qualify as TOP would still have similar structures. > (And do. Access to the U.S. Congress is through legislators, and > access to the legislators is through staff chosen by the legislators. > If you look at it closely, when it works, it is quite similar to DP, > but with some serious gaps; the basic gap is that the filtering is > not chosen at the bottom, but at the top.

Yes. Unless we develop TOP organisation that grew from the first moment on TOP, letting everybody do freely what they want, enabling concurency such as versions of Linux there are. We can talk about TOP parties that can enter elections and gain state legimacy. This process means getting on free political market to TOP and such party would not mean Internet democracy.

Yet, such party could strongly empower this TOP political proces, enabling much larger pluralism, elimination of
oligarchical/birocratical elements that stand between public and political enterprise, which would mean movement.

In such space, with empowered citizens and tested protocols of bottom up delegation/ or other legitimation and formalisation of empowerment/ those protocols that would gain mostly legitimated bodies and force behind it, could become state arbiters /in Internet democracy, I find concept of arbiters in solving conflicts best, as long as arbiters can gain political power/influence/legitimation of wider public.

> And that is exactly how it should be. In an FA/DP organization, > nobody is punished by the organization. Not even criminals. But > people may protect themselves, and the organization does not force > any individual to associate with any other. > > >Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it > >functions can be modified by anybody else? > > The confusion here is between “modification” of the rules and > “proposing modification.” > > The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules. > Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but > them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance.

> >I’m merely building on serge’s proposal of “open”. Proposal I really > >like, but which would ask to qualify participants. > > Organizations can have a qualification process, and if it does not > unreasonably exclude anyone who would be legitimately concerned with > the organization’s decisions, the organization could still be called “open.” > > If the burden of qualification becomes greater than necessary, > however, the label starts to be deceptive.

Let me try this way. When you say open, you mean you call other to help you in building public legitimation of any decision. This is actually linkage to common good concept. So, this does not mean you will accept everyone/noone as long as it is not possible and it is undrestood. Yet, if you are not going pro commong good, there are some chances you wont be able to legitimate decision by TOP organisation. I believe this is the reason transparency is not popular especially among those who are aware of going against the common good. And vice versa.

> “Open” does not mean that every individual can do just whatever he > chooses, with the group resources. It means that every member is free > to express his opinion, within the bounds of propriety, and that > there is a process by which that opinion is filtered. I.e., it is > considered, though not necessarily by the whole organization. Indeed, > in a large organization, that becomes impossible. DP makes almost > total openness possible, regardless of scale, but many other methods > exist and are in use. They just don’t scale as well.

Absolutelly. If there is no people who could be interested in product you openly offer, you can not gain power. If you can not gain power, you are politically irrelevant. So, by being TOP, you let public be the final arbiter in whole. And this is characteristic of true democracy, IMO.

> “Transparent” and “open” are thus not absolutes, they are relative. > There is a children’s educational page in our newspaper, and it, > perhaps unknowingly, had some cartoons in it, about democratic > process, that were hilarious. The page makes games out of the > subjects it examines, word puzzles, mazes, etc. So they had a cartoon > on the right of petition. And it showed a maze, with a letter at one > end and a mailbox on the other end. “Help Betty send a letter to the > mayor,” was the caption. > > A petition should not have to go through a maze! Yes, there must be a > process, but it must not be unnecessarily difficult to negotiate. A > process might exist, but if it is too difficult, we should not call > the organization “transparent.”

Indeed. Yet, common sense can set some basic tasks in front of such organisation that can be easily measurable/recognised. Deeper we enter into this process, more prone we are to “leaches”. Of course, we do not need optimal, but only effective process going on. No optimum in openness, I can notice. If that was so, time would probably be stopped :)

> >How do you qualify the “open” part of TOP? > > It is not a simple problem. Secret ballot, for example, is not > transparent. If an initiative fails, we don’t know who, specifically, > opposed it. It is one thing to use occasional secret ballot to > validate and confirm that an open process is not being distorted by > coercion, direct or subtle, but quite another thing to build a whole > system on it. Indeed, the probability seems high to me that the last > two Presidential elections in the U.S. were distorted by corruption > and error in the election process, producing results opposite to the > actual intention of a majority of voters. Secret ballot systems will > always be vulnerable, to some degree, to this.

If you have secrecy in some base, than you do not allow system to learn from its own mistakes. That is the important reason I am against any form of secrecy in political life. Other one is actually based to doubt that such secret ballot could ever gain legitimacy as process. It goes against the essence of TOP org.

> I would suggest that an organization is not fully TOP unless all > participants are known, or, if not known, then what they contribute > does not control outcomes, it is merely information subject to > verification or rejection by the organization’s process.

Interesting. If you want to make it “earthy”, you have to link it to capital from reality, such as somebodies identity it is. But, could you develop virtual TOP organisation also? If not, why not? The basic principle of TOP and paradigmatic difference to current orgs is sharing instead of controling info in order of gaining power, anyway.

> Full TOP may > not be realizable in power structures under present conditions. So I > would think that one needs to develop a series of measures and report > how an organization satisfies the criteria. 100% in all measures may > not be possible outside of FAs. But organizations could > substantially satisfy the criteria, and thus legitimately be called TOP.

You might be right.

> I know, you’d like to have a clear criterion, such that if they do X, > they are TOP, and if not, they are not. Unfortunately, such clear > criteria are rare with measures that are truly useful.

Hmh. This task is certainly not easy one, yet I do not find it impossible to be done. For an example, if Croatian socialists open their non-public forum to public and they enable free participation to others and in the same moment enable individuals from party to gain power base on informed citizens, some very important thing is done in that way for sure.

In the same time, you can have some other party that has same possiblities that are not being used, where public only comments and nobody is listening, yet there you get pretty clear notice what party is better and more public oriented and after all more democratic. And that is not small thing. In this way we actually support process of learning, optimisation and opening of parties. Those parties that remain closed wont benefit. Those who enable more opening, more participation, do benefit.

BTW, in scientific work i do about pharmacy and use of internet in informing patients, medical personality used to stigmatise internet, so there where no big work from medical institutions in offering info services for patients. But, demand from patients bypassed conservative institutions and conservative minds, so now these paranoic autors look rather funny. All thanks to open (or maybe better to say free) process that internet enabled.

> But an organization which is only open “to its members,” if > membership is restricted, is not purely “open.”

Yes.
ATB,
GAle

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

echarp — 2006-09-19 17:41:06+0200

> >I do think I understand what FA are, but I am speaking of organisations > >in a much more general fashion. And am particularly including those that > >control assets, power. > > Yes. And in discussing this, when we mention what is required for > organizations in general, and the requirement is not necessary for > FAs, then I mention this. > > It is an entirely new realization, though, as far as I know, that any > democratic power structure could be enhanced by having a parallel FA. > Indeed, many nondemocratic organizations could benefit. A for-profit > corporation could benefit, as would its stockholders, employees and > customers, by having a parallel “interest group” that is an FA/DP organization.

In France a concept looks similar to this => cooperatives. They are a reminiscence of the 1871 Parisian revolution called la commune, in which they implemented the first enterprises under auto gestion.

Today, there are still remnants, and I know of enterprises which operate normally, but are in fact controlled by the workers. In one of them, called easter eggs, the employees created an association which controls the enterprise.

But even if that association only counseled, I believe it would still become a place of power. Because those that are heard can change everything!

Read more… / Lire plus…

What would then become of your ideas and your intention to sidestep the issue of power?

> Deciding to go with FA/DP and setting aside the question of the power > structure cuts through this Gordian knot. This is, I believe, a > critical realization: if the public is organized, it can control > almost any reasonably democratic structure. It can even, as > necessary, overthrow tyrants and dictators, and relatively easily.

If it controls anything, then it becomes a center of attention and power!!!

> So if the public were well-informed and well-advised, which is a > product of the kind of organization I’m talking about, it does not > need changes in the power structures, though it can easily make them > if it so decides. The problem with present power structures is simply > the absence of a structured public intelligence, not of means whereby > the public can control governments. The means exist, but the > intelligence and coordination necessary to use them does not, > generally, exist, except in defective ways that are themselves > vulnerable to manipulation.

I’m proposing to use the internet for communication. It’s the revolution that has the power and energy to change everything in human society.

> This is why I’m promoting FA/DP: it postpones finding ideal solutions > to the problem of government but instead focuses on what should be a > precondition: an awakened body politic. “Awakened” does not mean that > everybody is actively engaged in politics. That’s not going to > happen, nor should it happen. But it does mean that people become > connected with government in away that has never before been > possible in large jurisdictions.

Have you read the clue train manifesto?

What is your opinion on those ideas?

> >If it is open to “hear” what the public says, but then dismisses it > >without due process, is it really open? > > No. So due process is part of the picture. > > >(in a democratic context, this due process could be a vote) > > Right. But not just a vote, it means the full deliberative process.

We are in a society where information can flow freely, thus I’m mostly concerned with the vote itself.

I know I know, you want to organise that flow, thus the proxy-client relationship. Yet there are already many many ways to communicate: newspapers, blogs, radio, tv, phones, books, forums, chat rooms, instant messaging, meetings etc.

Isn’t the proxy-client relationship mostly a blog and its associated news feed? What if you add into that mails, instant messaging, phone, real life meeting?

I’m mostly interested in DP as a way to organise votes and propositions, through an increase in the signal/noise ratio. FAs would just be one place, but I consider all organisations interesting.

> >DP is here to increase the signal/noise ratio. But I think any > >participant should be able to propose anything. It will get interest if > >more people look it up and vote for it. > > But if it is hidden in 126,547 proposals made the same day?

It will remain hidden unless/until it gathers votes and appears on the radar of more people.

> Yes, anyone should be able to propose anything. But not necessarily > to the whole public at once. Which is next to useless anyway. Rather, > to structures that receive and respond to input. Not just “Yes” or > “No,” which is what you get from a vote, but “This is why we have not > accepted your suggestion,” followed by an explanation that shows the > suggestion was considered and was rejected after due consideration.

“parlement” is used to propose and vote, but it is designed as a forum. Thus no problem.

> What is needed is a communications structure, it is actually more > important than control. If you can communicate, you can control, > presuming that the resources are available to those who communicate.

I mostly agree yes. Control occurs through communication (unless a would be dictator developed god like powers).

> >Do public always include everybody? Can “public” be a subset of > >"everybody"? > > No. Unless you specifically define it in the usage. For example, the > English-speaking public is only that part of the public which speaks English.

Then “everybody” include everybody on the planet. That means you give control to the largest body of people who might have any sort of interest in your organisation. I’m speaking of any kind of organisation, including those that have some sort of power.

What of a small organisation being “attacked” by a much larger one? (again, I’m speaking of organisations that have some kind of power)

> > > >Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large > > > >body of people. > > > > > > Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important. > > > But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In > > > this case, “public” is defined as that body of people who are subject > > > to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of > > > them. Including felons, by the way. > > > >I agree 100% > > > >But then, it does not include people who are not subject to the > >sovereignty of the government! > > Yes. We are talking about governments here, and the government is not > controlled by people who are not subject to it. That’s pretty basic.

It is, and this is what I’m speaking about!!!

> The structures that can be proven to work in Free Associations can be > adapted for use in power structures. DP is one obvious example. In a > power structure, it is very close to what is standard in business: > proxy democracy. DP makes it scalable. But FAs may show that much of > what we take for granted as necessary, i.e., coercion, is not > necessary, is not even truly functional. And maybe they won’t. But I > think they will. We won’t know until we try it….

I think you would discover that a FA that reaches any sort of political usefulness will become a center of attention, a power structure.

Ever heard of ATTAC? It is such an association. And lately it has come under the scrutiny of many.

(note, attac is definitely not TOP, as it is statutorily controlled by its founders)

> >[…]I agree, and [FA/DP] is a fine system. But I’m also considering power > >structures. Those that use coercion to control us, or that define what > >is legal and what is not, or that control infrastructures. > > Yes. What I’m saying is that we need to solve the communication > problem first, before we will know very well how to solve the power > control problem.

And what I’m starting to fear is that any human institution of relevance will gather power and have power control problems.

> >I’m interested. I definitely am interested in a panarchy, but I think > >power structures have to be designed. > > They do. And I’m suggesting that the problem of the design of power > structures is extremely difficult, compared to the problem of > designing communications structures. And communications structures, > theoretically, should make it possible not only to design far better > power structures, but also to implement them.

Power structures occur everywhere humans are. I’m sure AA have those too. I’m sure some organiser is using it for his own benefit, somewhere, somehow.

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

AbdLomax — 2006-09-19 04:42:21+0200

At 05:37 PM 9/18/2006, echarp wrote: >I do think I understand what FA are, but I am speaking of organisations >in a much more general fashion. And am particularly including those that >control assets, power.

Yes. And in discussing this, when we mention what is required for organizations in general, and the requirement is not necessary for FAs, then I mention this.

It is an entirely new realization, though, as far as I know, that any democratic power structure could be enhanced by having a parallel FA. Indeed, many nondemocratic organizations could benefit. A for-profit corporation could benefit, as would its stockholders, employees and customers, by having a parallel “interest group” that is an FA/DP organization.

The corporation is not TOP, except as required by law and as the stockholders, through the Board, determine is in the interests of the corporation. The FA/DP organization, though, is TOP, practically by definition. (FA/DP organizations might still have a membership requirement, though generally it is self-defined; having a credentials committee or officer creates a potential for distortion.) You can be anyone interested in the corporation and its products or services. Including a competitor. Obviously, the members of the FA who are, say, employees of the corporation, are not generally going to reveal trade secrets to the FA. However, they might reveal them to selected customers, as they now do. The difference is that it becomes possible to have a few representatives of all customers. And all employees. And all shareholders. And, indeed, all interested competitors. DP is should make this kind of thing possible on a large scale.

Read more… / Lire plus…

From another point of view, DP should make it possible for an

ordinary person, with no staff, to belong to hundreds of interest groups and still maintain functionality in each, without going insane from the traffic.

> > Non-residents are often affected by city decisions. Non-residents, > > indeed, may be taxpayers and property owners in the city; one aspect > > of present systems in the U.S. is that these have no rights to > > participate in city decisions. So the city can decide to tax the land > > of those who have no right to participate in the decision…. Is this fair? > >It is very unfair. And I’m asking to define “public” so that it >includes those who are taxed for example. I don’t know, it may very well >be an impossible task :(

Deciding to go with FA/DP and setting aside the question of the power structure cuts through this Gordian knot. This is, I believe, a critical realization: if the public is organized, it can control almost any reasonably democratic structure. It can even, as necessary, overthrow tyrants and dictators, and relatively easily. The problem is organizing the public. In history, it has happened in a spontaneous, relatively transient manner, and typically with some “vanguard” organization that was able to lead the revolution, powered by a general public desire for change. Unfortunately, all too often, that vanguard becomes the new oppressor. Because the problem was never identified and addressed: how to organize the public without setting up a new oligarchy.

What does it mean that the public is organized? Does it mean that it is subject to the authority of some leader? That’s not public organization, in the meaning I’m using, that is dictatorship. Very efficient. And also very limited in intelligence. Big, stupid, dangerous. (Its “efficiency” means that terrible mistakes can quickly be made that would be avoided if the people involved had any say in the matter.)

Modern democracies in general have set up structures that create oligarchies. Because the public is not organized outside of government, government ends up regulating itself, and organized special interest groups have an advantage, through the media, of exerting influence against the general public interest. Were the public organized, each of these SIGs would be what it should be: a voice for a special interest, able to influence through argument and information, unable to overpower and deceive through an excess of spending in the media. The public has more resources.

So if the public were well-informed and well-advised, which is a product of the kind of organization I’m talking about, it does not need changes in the power structures, though it can easily make them if it so decides. The problem with present power structures is simply the absence of a structured public intelligence, not of means whereby the public can control governments. The means exist, but the intelligence and coordination necessary to use them does not, generally, exist, except in defective ways that are themselves vulnerable to manipulation.

This is why I’m promoting FA/DP: it postpones finding ideal solutions to the problem of government but instead focuses on what should be a precondition: an awakened body politic. “Awakened” does not mean that everybody is actively engaged in politics. That’s not going to happen, nor should it happen. But it does mean that people become connected with government in away that has never before been possible in large jurisdictions.

>If it is open to “hear” what the public says, but then dismisses it >without due process, is it really open?

No. So due process is part of the picture.

>(in a democratic context, this due process could be a vote)

Right. But not just a vote, it means the full deliberative process. In large organizations with broad interests, like a government, much of this process is delegated to committees, and from there to subcommittees, etc. Again, these are methods of noise control. Everyone cannot consider everything at the same time.

>DP is here to increase the signal/noise ratio. But I think any >participant should be able to propose anything. It will get interest if >more people look it up and vote for it.

But if it is hidden in 126,547 proposals made the same day?

Yes, anyone should be able to propose anything. But not necessarily to the whole public at once. Which is next to useless anyway. Rather, to structures that receive and respond to input. Not just “Yes” or “No,” which is what you get from a vote, but “This is why we have not accepted your suggestion,” followed by an explanation that shows the suggestion was considered and was rejected after due consideration. I’ve seen what happens with present governmental structures: you get back a “No,” and what it amounts to is, simply, “No.” Often it makes no sense, all it means is that some bureaucrat or committee, for unknown reasons, rejected it. I’m involved with a local initiative for a Chinese language immersion charter school. The group has satisfied all legal requirements. The proposal was rejected. Why? Well, comments were given, as well as the committee vote. It was clear from examining this that there was one member of the committee who simply did not want the proposal to get through; the votes on numerous measures were something like 8 to 1. The committee does not make the decision, staff does. And the staff decided based, apparently, on the negative comments of one member. I will guess that there is a whole lot of politics involved, including a general bias against charter schools on the part of the dominant political party in our state. Frustrating, because the objections that seem to have influenced the decision were essentially … not based on an understanding of what an immersion language program is….

What is needed is a communications structure, it is actually more important than control. If you can communicate, you can control, presuming that the resources are available to those who communicate.

> > What I’m saying is that, in English, the word “public” > >Sorry, this was lost, can you elaborate? > >Do public always include everybody? Can “public” be a subset of >"everybody"?

No. Unless you specifically define it in the usage. For example, the English-speaking public is only that part of the public which speaks English.

> > I think the term “public” is nearly synonymous with “open.” > >If it is, then maybe we should drop it.

Maybe. But “open” could mean “open to members,” and then “public” means that anyone many join. You can then have organizations which are TO but not TOP.

> > >Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large > > >body of people. > > > > Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important. > > But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In > > this case, “public” is defined as that body of people who are subject > > to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of > > them. Including felons, by the way. > >I agree 100% > >But then, it does not include people who are not subject to the >sovereignty of the government!

Yes. We are talking about governments here, and the government is not controlled by people who are not subject to it. That’s pretty basic.

Rather, there are, or should be, organizations above the government in question, until there is a government of the world, which everyone is subject to. We don’t really have that now, some people think we shouldn’t. I think it’s possible without oppression, but it is not where we should start. If we set up a government without knowing how to run the institutions on a large scale, except through methods which are known to break down at a large scale and over time, a world government could indeed be seriously oppressive, with no opportunity to escape. One again, we finesse the problem by starting with Free Associations.

The structures that can be proven to work in Free Associations can be adapted for use in power structures. DP is one obvious example. In a power structure, it is very close to what is standard in business: proxy democracy. DP makes it scalable. But FAs may show that much of what we take for granted as necessary, i.e., coercion, is not necessary, is not even truly functional. And maybe they won’t. But I think they will. We won’t know until we try it….

>[…]I agree, and [FA/DP] is a fine system. But I’m also considering power >structures. Those that use coercion to control us, or that define what >is legal and what is not, or that control infrastructures.

Yes. What I’m saying is that we need to solve the communication problem first, before we will know very well how to solve the power control problem.

> > This leaves completely unanswered how the actual power structures > > function. And I like it that way. I’d rather see the new systems > > designed by the kind of intelligence I expect to arise in large FA/DP > > organization! > >You sidestep the whole notion of “power”, in an ideal world, who/what >would have power? Individuals? Caucuses?

Individuals will have individual power, which becomes mass power through caucuses, which find consensus through communication and deliberation. The public has power, already, but it has no communications structure suitable for coordinating that power.

Because an FA does not control its members — it is specifically not a government, it is not even an organization in some traditional senses — it cannot prevent a caucus from forming and acting. However, the context of an FA/DP organization makes it desirable to find consensus to the degree possible before acting, lest the action be opposed and therefore lessened in strength.

>I’m interested. I definitely am interested in a panarchy, but I think >power structures have to be designed.

They do. And I’m suggesting that the problem of the design of power structures is extremely difficult, compared to the problem of designing communications structures. And communications structures, theoretically, should make it possible not only to design far better power structures, but also to implement them.

What has always happened in revolutions is that change has come through some new idea of how to organize the people, how to run a government. That new idea hasn’t actually been tried in the context involved, typically. And quite frequently the law of unintended consequences does its dirty work, and people end up, often, worse of than before. The FA/DP “revolution” does not contain an idea of how to run the government. Rather, it simply makes it possible for people to come to an agreement about this, as well as about many other issues. You could call that an “idea of how to run the government,” but it does not specify detail. At all. It could be that the people would agree that John Q. Messiah is the best person to run the government. I rather doubt it, but if a majority of people want this, and stick to it, the minority cannot resist it. A distributed majority, in the U.S., has the power to amend the U.S. constitution. It is commonly misunderstood that it requires a supermajority. It does not. It requires 3/4 of the states to agree. Which can be, actually, less than a majority of the people, by quite a margin….

(But, of course, if it is only a thin majority, and those opposed are so opposed that they are willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent it, we’d have quite a mess, wouldn’t we? The danger of majority rule is that a determined minority can make life hell for everyone. Tyranny of the majority is just as dangerous as tyranny by oligarchs.)

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

echarp — 2006-09-18 23:37:00+0200

> >My concern is not of “one” member misbehaving, it is of organisation A > >with 1000 members hijacking organisation B with 100 members. > > Right. In an FA/DP organization that actually is so easy that it is > impossible. If you don’t understand, you haven’t been reading what > I’ve written about it, so why should I repeat. Perhaps you understand….

I do think I understand what FA are, but I am speaking of organisations in a much more general fashion. And am particularly including those that control assets, power.

> Non-residents are often affected by city decisions. Non-residents, > indeed, may be taxpayers and property owners in the city; one aspect > of present systems in the U.S. is that these have no rights to > participate in city decisions. So the city can decide to tax the land > of those who have no right to participate in the decision…. Is this fair?

It is very unfair. And I’m asking to define “public” so that it includes those who are taxed for example. I don’t know, it may very well be an impossible task :(

Read more… / Lire plus…

> All I’m pointing out is that such people do have a stake in what > the city does. If voting is anonymous, it becomes problematic to > allow nonresidents to participate. But if it is open, not so much of a problem.

If it is open to “hear” what the public says, but then dismisses it without due process, is it really open?

(in a democratic context, this due process could be a vote)

> >The right to propose a modification seems silly to me, because we are in > >a society where information can already flow freely (except for > >copyrights and such stupid things). > > Information flow is not free when it is overwhelmed with noise. In > any case, the systems we imagine would generally allow proposed > modifications to only be made by high-level proxies, in large > organizations, because other members don’t have floor rights. They > have the right to vote in polls, they have the right to name proxies, > but organizational rules, determined meeting by meeting, will govern > who has direct access to the meeting (i.e., with a mailing list > meeting, the right to post without moderation).

DP is here to increase the signal/noise ratio. But I think any participant should be able to propose anything. It will get interest if more people look it up and vote for it.

> What I’m saying is that, in English, the word “public”

Sorry, this was lost, can you elaborate?

Do public always include everybody? Can “public” be a subset of “everybody”?

> I think the term “public” is nearly synonymous with “open.”

If it is, then maybe we should drop it.

> >Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large > >body of people. > > Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important. > But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In > this case, “public” is defined as that body of people who are subject > to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of > them. Including felons, by the way.

I agree 100%

But then, it does not include people who are not subject to the sovereignty of the government!

> We solve the problem in FA/DP organizations by avoiding the issue! > When the organization does not move power, there is no motive for a > person to get 1000 people to join and name him proxy, unless those > people are actually involved and will exert power when it it > recommended to him by them.

I agree, and it is a fine system. But I’m also considering power structures. Those that use coercion to control us, or that define what is legal and what is not, or that control infrastructures.

> This leaves completely unanswered how the actual power structures > function. And I like it that way. I’d rather see the new systems > designed by the kind of intelligence I expect to arise in large FA/DP > organization!

You sidestep the whole notion of “power”, in an ideal world, who/what would have power? Individuals? Caucuses?

I’m interested. I definitely am interested in a panarchy, but I think power structures have to be designed.

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

AbdLomax — 2006-09-18 21:36:42+0200

At 09:54 AM 9/18/2006, echarp wrote:

> > (1) “Open” does not mean “open with absolutely no exception.” It > > means “substantially open, such that the label is not deceptive.” > >Current TOP definition proposal includes an openness to everyone with no >exception.

If there is no exception, if openness is immediate, I can guarantee, it won’t work in truly large organizations. I.e., governmental or quasi-governmental structures. Town Meeting government is open to every citizen of the Town, who may appear and speak and vote personally at Town Meeting. And it starts to break down before perhaps 100 people in attendance. Town Meeting works because most people don’t go.

Some kind of filtering is necessary. Filtering means that it is no longer 100% open. It means that there is a process of putting information before the public, or before a top-level council. If everyone can add content to a channel, and that channel controls some asset widely considered important, the channel will, we can be sure, rapidly become unusable. Totally open newsgroups on usenet worked great for years, then, gradually, they became filled with spam and other noise, until legitimate messages were a small fraction of what was being transmitted.

Read more… / Lire plus…

But if by “openness” you mean that everyone has an opportunity to input information or requests, through due process, and this process does insure that the information or request does get a hearing, though not necessarily by the whole group, then it can work. Indeed, this is precisely what we propose. We propose filtering by proxies, who are intermediaries, in general, between the general public and top level meetings. The proxies are chosen by the people, directly, not through elections, but they also must maintain collegiality with their peers, or those peers will stop listening to them, will filter them out.

> > The way I’d generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after > > a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the > > like, would routinely have the right to make edits. > >You are also “qualifying” participation. I’m doing nothing else. > >"Transparent and open to its participants". Data can go to and from a >given public. Of course “public” would need a definition, the best kind >of definition would involve “all people affected”…

Yes. However, I would distinguish between membership organizations and public ones. In a public organization, every member of the public is, by right, a participant (unless that right is withdrawn for cause). In a membership organization, participants may be required to meet some standard. “open to the members” is thus quite different than “open to the public.” If the P in TOP means “Public,” you are stuck.

>A small city does not have to be open to an enterprise who could ask its >employees worldwide to cast a vote or choose a proxy. Or wouldn’t that >be incredibly strange and unfair?

Depends. Once again, we distinguish between power structures and communications structures, and, in particular, the latter can be Free Associations (FAs). Delegable Proxy (DP), combined with the FA traditions, allows total openness. There is nothing strange or unfair about it, since the FA does not control assets and since any subset of the FA membership can decide to ignore any other subset. Wisely, it will do this only when there is an active attempt to sabotage discussion.

A city may, for example, require address verification for participation. Anyone may join, including people who don’t live in the city. But then it is known who, among those being polled, are residents, and who are not.

Non-residents are often affected by city decisions. Non-residents, indeed, may be taxpayers and property owners in the city; one aspect of present systems in the U.S. is that these have no rights to participate in city decisions. So the city can decide to tax the land of those who have no right to participate in the decision…. Is this fair?

All I’m pointing out is that such people do have a stake in what the city does. If voting is anonymous, it becomes problematic to allow nonresidents to participate. But if it is open, not so much of a problem.

> > >Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it > > >functions can be modified by anybody else? > > > > The confusion here is between “modification” of the rules and > > “proposing modification.” > >The right to propose a modification seems silly to me, because we are in >a society where information can already flow freely (except for >copyrights and such stupid things).

Information flow is not free when it is overwhelmed with noise. In any case, the systems we imagine would generally allow proposed modifications to only be made by high-level proxies, in large organizations, because other members don’t have floor rights. They have the right to vote in polls, they have the right to name proxies, but organizational rules, determined meeting by meeting, will govern who has direct access to the meeting (i.e., with a mailing list meeting, the right to post without moderation).

> > The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules. > > Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but > > them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance. > >The concept of TOP organisation includes FAs, it is possible that a TOP >group would be an enterprise, a city or even a country. Then changes >*are* binding!

Again, not in an FA. Of course they may be binding in a TOP organization.

> > >I’m merely building on serge’s proposal of “open”. Proposal I really > > >like, but which would ask to qualify participants. > > > > Organizations can have a qualification process, and if it does not > > unreasonably exclude anyone who would be legitimately concerned with > > the organization’s decisions, the organization could still be > called “open.” > >This is what I am proposing. > >The focus should be on the definition of “public”!

What I’m saying is that, in English, the word “public”

> > “Open” does not mean that every individual can do just whatever he > > chooses, with the group resources. It means that every member is free > > to express his opinion, within the bounds of propriety, and that > > there is a process by which that opinion is filtered. I.e., it is > > considered, though not necessarily by the whole organization. Indeed, > > in a large organization, that becomes impossible. DP makes almost > > total openness possible, regardless of scale, but many other methods > > exist and are in use. They just don’t scale as well. > >My concern is not of “one” member misbehaving, it is of organisation A >with 1000 members hijacking organisation B with 100 members.

Right. In an FA/DP organization that actually is so easy that it is impossible. If you don’t understand, you haven’t been reading what I’ve written about it, so why should I repeat. Perhaps you understand….

> > > How do you qualify the “open” part of TOP? > > > > I went a bit afield above, didn’t I? To qualify it requires a fairly > > deep discussion. It is fine unqualified, as long as the detailed > > description does not take way what any reasonable reader would imply > > from the mere use of the term in context. “Transparent, Open, Public.” > >What is your definition of Transparent, Open, Public?

I think the term “public” is nearly synonymous with “open.”

> > But an organization which is only open “to its members,” if > > membership is restricted, is not purely “open.” > >Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large >body of people.

Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important. But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In this case, “public” is defined as that body of people who are subject to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of them. Including felons, by the way.

>In a FA this is not important, but in many human organisations, it is! > >Public should involve “all people concerned”. I don’t know if this can >be a proper definition, but at least, it’s a start.

That is certainly a start.

We solve the problem in FA/DP organizations by avoiding the issue! When the organization does not move power, there is no motive for a person to get 1000 people to join and name him proxy, unless those people are actually involved and will exert power when it it recommended to him by them. Yes, some will try to bluff, but it will become rapidly obvious. Independent analysts using the proxy lists can, for example, discount the entire tree of a suspect proxy, something that can’t be done with the central tools. They can discount bursts of new members, if they like. Whatever they want.

The central organization is held by trustees who are not involved in content, they are involved in process. If they abuse their position, the members simply move elsewhere. DP is what makes this feasible. A collection of proxies who think the central organization is off can immediately form another organization.

This leaves completely unanswered how the actual power structures function. And I like it that way. I’d rather see the new systems designed by the kind of intelligence I expect to arise in large FA/DP organization!

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

echarp — 2006-09-18 15:54:19+0200

> >It’s rather easy, transparency to everybody is not much, > > actually, it’s huge….

It’s a big change culturally, but easier than many other possibilities technically.

> > but being open to modifications by everybody, is giving powers to > > people who might just want to break everything. > > (1) “Open” does not mean “open with absolutely no exception.” It > means “substantially open, such that the label is not deceptive.”

Current TOP definition proposal includes an openness to everyone with no exception.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> The way I’d generally set it up would be that members, perhaps after > a brief waiting period, perhaps after identity confirmation or the > like, would routinely have the right to make edits.

You are also “qualifying” participation. I’m doing nothing else.

“Transparent and open to its participants”. Data can go to and from a given public. Of course “public” would need a definition, the best kind of definition would involve “all people affected”…

A small city does not have to be open to an enterprise who could ask its employees worldwide to cast a vote or choose a proxy. Or wouldn’t that be incredibly strange and unfair?

> >Can you imagine one enterprise, one country, where the rules by which it > >functions can be modified by anybody else? > > The confusion here is between “modification” of the rules and > “proposing modification.”

The right to propose a modification seems silly to me, because we are in a society where information can already flow freely (except for copyrights and such stupid things).

> The assumption seems to be that just anyone can change the rules. > Sure, they can, but those changes do not bind or affect anyone but > them. Unless their changes gain broader acceptance.

The concept of TOP organisation includes FAs, it is possible that a TOP group would be an enterprise, a city or even a country. Then changes are binding!

This is what I am proposing.

The focus should be on the definition of “public”!

My concern is not of “one” member misbehaving, it is of organisation A with 1000 members hijacking organisation B with 100 members.

> > How do you qualify the “open” part of TOP? > > I went a bit afield above, didn’t I? To qualify it requires a fairly > deep discussion. It is fine unqualified, as long as the detailed > description does not take way what any reasonable reader would imply > from the mere use of the term in context. “Transparent, Open, Public.”

What is your definition of Transparent, Open, Public?

> But an organization which is only open “to its members,” if > membership is restricted, is not purely “open.”

Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large body of people.

In a FA this is not important, but in many human organisations, it is!

Public should involve “all people concerned”. I don’t know if this can be a proper definition, but at least, it’s a start.

echarp – http://leparlement.org