Open-Media-Network
/
openwebgovernancebody
8
4
Fork 0
Code Issues 3 Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

master
Captain_Noodles 2021-05-04 11:43:03 +00:00
parent 1fa81dcb15
commit c4816eebd0
1 changed files with 7 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
Online-governance-.md

@ -53,18 +53,21 @@ reach a core consensus they can create a group around the issue.
* Consensus of Voices (-1) makes agreements THE "voice of the Fediverse". * Consensus of Voices (-1) makes agreements THE "voice of the Fediverse".
**What are the risks:** **What are the risks:**
“serving the humans trying to communicate” by getting out of the way and let the humans work it out and simply providing structure for the groups, we don’t define the groups. “serving the humans trying to communicate” by getting out of the way and let the humans work it out and simply providing structure for the groups, we don’t define the groups.
* Groups could be captured by agendas – being open to all body members mediates this.
* basic security and checks – to see if an instance still exists and is real. If a member account is actively posting or a pulpit – all of this can be done with flagging some of them by code some by people – flags stuff goes to the “security group” * Bad group of voices - are flagged by other body members. When the flagging reaches a criteria the security group can act to reach an aggreement on these flags. If the bad voices sneak through these checks, we have an exeptional case, where the body acts as an admin by flagging over a threshold by a set period.
* Groups can be captured by agenders – being open to all stakeholder members mediates this – we solve swamping by having a dynamic short non-voting time based on the number of new members in the group. Basic security and checks – to see if an instance still exists and is real. If a member account is actively posting or a puppet – all of this can be done with member flagging, some automated others by people – flagged accounts and posts goes to the “security group”
* Bad group of spokes people, it’s a lottery, it’s up to the groups to influence and as a last resort “recole” if one goes a new one is chosen by lottery. It’s a lottery, it’s up to the groups to influence and as a last resort “recall” if one goes a new one is chosen by lottery.
The actual number of voices are dynamic depending on the number of stakeholders but between 3-5 is likely a good number.
* The actual number of spokes people are dynamic depending on the number of stakeholders but between 3-5 is likely a good number.
**The work flow would be:** **The work flow would be:**