[MG] Hosting and collaborative development of crossforum theatre

[Michael Allan]

Pietro Speroni di Fenizio:
> It would be interesting to set up a system where an action (let's
> say, an email get sent, which then could trigger a number of other
> actions) only when everybody inside a group, (or at least n people
> out of a group, or at least ... but considering that this person
> counts more...) agrees on it.
 
Thomas von der Elbe wrote:
> I thought about this issue too. And I agree, we need a mechanism to
> govern ourselves. Basically for every desicion, let it be the
> homepage, the licence, the admin-rules etc. Ofc we can use our own
> tools to vote on it. But we would first need to find out, what the
> conditions are to say, a poll is finished. What is consensus? Do we
> want the same consensus in every question? Imo destroying the
> project should be harder than changing the homepage ... So this is
> the meta-question we were talking about some time ago: When is a
> question decided? (To make it even more complicated: the
> meta-meta-question: When is the meta-question decided? :-)

The action that follows on a vote is something that's been called
"promulgation" in some contexts, so I borrowed the term here:
http://zelea.com/project/outcast/prom.xht
A mechanism for it (one possible mechanism) is something Alex calls
"vote processing":
http://u.zelea.com/w/User:Alex.rollin-GmailCom/Vote_Processing

It's interesting because any number of promulgation mechanisms may
operate over the same vote-base, and they may compete with each other.
In addition to any administrative mechanisms we may design, there are
also social ones that we have no control over.  Those might be some
help in safeguarding against administrations that, despite our best
intentions, get out of control (topic of another thread).

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/



Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org