[MG] Wise Use of Funds Raised

[Ned Conner]

Stephen, Greetings!

    Stephen Coffman wrote (Mon Oct 24 11:44:03 EDT 2011)
    http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2011-October/004394.html

    Time and again we've experienced the inability of our chosen
    representatives to realize the outcomes they were elected to secure
    for us. There's a growing resolve for change that is becoming more
    difficult to deny and deflect through the all-to-familiar routines
    of spin and parry. For whatever reason, the existing system has
    foundered and is incapable of sustaining the needs of ordinary men
    and women, let alone the yearnings of the whole of life itself. The
    vested interests are now so dominant and entrenched that the only
    way to bring about a civil and compassionate society is to organize
    and empower an entirely new way. The moment is upon us. Active
    cultivation of a truly equitable, conscious, and global
    collaboration is the only feasible option open to us at this point.
    The tools and the temper requisite to establish an alternative means
    of governing ourselves are very much alive and growing daily. It is
    now up to us to generate some new system of caring for the common
    body of this magnificent world. Metagov is creating a collaborative,
    consensus-based, and synthesis-oriented template in order to
    facilitate the changes that are currently upon us. This is how you
    can work with us....

    As together we choose, together it will be.

For me personally, that passage definitely "rang my chime". You nailed it.

    Stephen Coffman wrote (Tue Dec 13 20:41:39 EST 2011)
    http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2011-December/004621.html

    When I look at the profusion of critical issues we are now facing
    and the narrow window we have to adjust our current momentum, the
    preponderant question for me is..."do we have the time, patience,
    and collective will to push "legislation" through the existing
    structures?" Personally, I don't think so. The entrenched
    polarities/obstructions are too great and I wonder whether we're at
    the crossroads where we need to let go of the embedded or existing
    "administrative decision systems" entirely....or nearly so...to
    begin anew.. [The..."You just can't put new wine into old
    skins"...kinda thing.]

Once again: definitely rang my chime. These two passages (in my view) 
are highly pertinent to the topic of this thread: *Wise Use of Funds 
Raised*.

And now your latest post, to which I respond below, is yet another 
chime-ringer for me.

In keeping with a tradition that dates back at least to Abraham Lincoln 
("I would have written you a short letter rather than a long letter, but 
I didn't have enough time"), I will respond to your post 
sentence-by-sentence.

    Stephen> In my mind the combination is: a social network, a
    fundraising platform/foundation, and a self-organizing crowd sourced
    *process*. 

Ned> Network, platform, process. I can groove to that ...

    Stephen> as in.... Develop a global internet *organization* ... 

Ned> The organization must encompass three very distinct scales: team, 
community, population. The team (often optimally 5 to 8 individuals, 
almost always less than 25) is able to closely collaborate. The 
community (limited by Dunbar's Number: less than 150 or so) is able to 
directly, informally consult and interact, generally upon request of the 
team. The population (which may number in the millions or billions, may 
span continents and natural languages) can work and interact 
(indirectly) only through formalized systems. Yes?

    Stephen> ... that funds specific projects by rewarding the
    people/groups that create the most widely supported proposals. 

Ned> I have a problem with "widely supported". I think that we should 
instead go with "deeply supported". Rather than using popularity as the 
basis for choosing which proposals to reward and which projects to fund, 
I think that we would be better off using rational discourse outcomes as 
the basis.

Also, the funded projects will produce implementation outcomes. By 
establishing feedback loops from those outcomes to the proposers, we can 
have a much healthier and more reality-based decision system. It is not 
good when proposers can reap benefits for proposing policies and plans 
and projects that subsequently turn out badly for Humanity, Nature, and 
Future Generations.

    Stephen> Make crowd-sourcing the *collective mind* fun. 

Ned> Yes! I am a really big fan of fun. However, the term 
"crowd-sourcing" in this context makes me nervous. If it means "anyone 
can propose anything, on equal footing", then I am comfortable. If it 
means something else, what does it mean?

    Stephen> whereas... Each person/group gets a webpage where they can
    describe themselves, their vision, their proposal(s), their
    projects, their community, etc, etc, etc. 

Ned> I would suggest that we adopt the *proposal* as the formal unit of 
analysis and action with respect to funding. Each proposal would be the 
work-product of a team project (or in some cases a multi-team project). 
The process of preparing and proposing a proposal might include creating 
a network of web pages, and might also include other sorts of activities 
and creatings as well.

    Stephen> People can "like" each others projects, watch them as they
    progress, make pledges to them, "share" them with others, help
    develop them, and ultimately vote for them. 

Ned> I agree that each individual should/must be free to "like", watch, 
make pledges, "share", and help develop, entirely as the individual sees 
fit. I do not agree that we should use voting to make public decisions. 
I think that we will be better off if we choose to use rational 
discourse (without voting) as the means through which to collaboratively 
make public decisions.

    Stephen> *Meta-governance* drives the process....makes it
    easy...keeps it clean, organized, and open. 

Ned> I definitely agree with this sentence, but at the same time, I 
confess that I have no idea what you mean by it ... :-)

    Stephen> The nuts and bolts of the organization/process are managed
    by members of a *steering committee* who are selected and voted for
    by the entire network and have a term of one cycle. 

Ned> As a matter of principle, as a matter of establishing and nurturing 
the energetic vibrational "signature" of the democratic mindset in 
society, I would suggest that we be very intentional and very thorough 
in not formalizing or institutionalizing manifestations of the 
"master/slave" mindset in our social system designs. The mindset that 
says "they need us to take care of them" is the same mindset that says 
"they need us to steer them". Slavemasters quite often genuinely see 
themselves as doing good.

Just as it was hypocritical for the USA Founding Fathers to so 
eloquently express how much they valued freedom while owning slaves, it 
would in my view be hypocritical for us to fund democracy projects 
through a system run by a steering committee.

To make this point stick, I need to present a democratic alternative to 
the steering committee. I have already done that, over at the *Freetimea 
 >> Isonomea* wiki. (It's a long story, so I won't repeat it here. A 
soundbite version might be that steering is effected through proposing, 
through clauses in project contracts, and ultimately through each 
individual steering him or her self, in collaboration with others, as 
equals.)

    Stephen> The process is cyclical. It moves through stages that line
    up with the natural cycle....and culminates with a global
    celebration (maybe Summer Solstice) where the crowd sourced/crowd
    funded *summit document* is *posted* and read. 

Ned> Though I can understand that such an arrangement might have some 
theatrical value, I think that we will be better off if we spread the 
business of proposing and deciding across the entire year, and don't 
connect it to the partying. Partying is good, but business is business. 
And, business is fun. When I have worked hard to submit a proposal, I 
want action to be taken on the submitted proposal within a week, no 
matter when I have submitted it during the year. It would be a horrible 
waste of valuable momentum and motivation to make me wait months to find 
out what I need to do next with respect to the matter of my proposal.

The idea of a "summit document" that is "posted" sends cold chills of 
dread down my spine. Summits occur at the tops of pyramids ...

    Stephen> Following the celebration, the *advance* begins. Proposals
    reaching those criteria decided on by the network get funded and
    awarded. 

Ned> Remember Blinap? Blinap is the only decision system design that I 
know of that can accomplish at the scale of populations what you are 
suggesting here: "Proposals reaching those criteria decided on by the 
network get funded and awarded." If you have in mind or know of some 
other decision system design that can accomplish what you are suggesting 
here, I would definitely like to see it.

(Also, Blinap takes action within a week on each proposal submitted -- 
no waiting around forever.)

    Stephen> And then the process continues on....as decided by the most
    recent iteration of the *document*. 

Ned> Again I find myself experiencing the cold chills of dread. Maybe it 
would help if I could peruse one of the iterations of the *document* ...

    Stephen> There are project proposals, and process proposals. 

Ned> In my universe, anything that can be proposed, can be proposed: 
projects, processes, objections, problems, policies, plans, priorities, 
profiles, discoveries, inventions, news reports, literary works, 
entertainment recordings, product designs, mathematical proofs, software 
code modules, facts, predictive models, predictions, worldview elements, 
analyses, appraisals, investigation findings, and so on (and on). Any of 
these types of proposals may be worthy of funding when they meet the 
criteria decided on by the network.

    Stephen> Project proposals can be anything...and made by anyone. 

Ned> Yes! Except that I would delete the word "Project" at the beginning 
of the sentence.

    Stephen> The network is open to everyone (individuals and
    groups).....unless of course the *network* decides otherwise. 

Ned> Thus far, I have not been able to come up with any reasons that 
could survive in rational discourse for excluding anyone from joining 
who wants to. Everything from the Golden Rule to "hold your enemies 
closer" says let in everyone. For example, the solution when dealing 
with Hannibal Lector types is to incarcerate them, not exclude them. If 
policies are set through rational discourse, reasons that could survive 
rational discourse would need to be found in order for the network to 
decide otherwise.

    Stephen> The organization/process supports project development in a
    variety of ways.... making it fun, easy to source, and simple to
    find others of *like kind*. 

Ned> Yes! Again, Blinap is the best design that I have seen to 
accomplish this at the scale of populations. (But I may be biased ...)

    Stephen> Process proposals can be made by anyone. If they reach a
    certain threshold of agreement they can alter the *process* of the
    network. 

Ned> In a popularity-driven system, proposals would reach a threshold of 
agreement (defined by a quorum rule together with a 
vote-count-percentage rule, or some such). In a rational discourse 
system, agreement would be reached at the point that there were no 
unresolved disagreements.

    Stephen> The organization tracks everything and makes it all
    available on the main webpage where access to the entire *document*
    resides. No hiding out! 

Ned> I am definitely in agreement with the notion of radical 
transparency, and of tracking everything and making it available. But at 
the scale of the global population, tens of millions of proposals will 
be made each year, ranging across all fields of human endeavor and 
interest. Not sure that even just access to all of that will fit on one 
page. We may need a library/database rather than a document. (This may 
be why I am experiencing the cold chills of dread. "Document" feels a 
bit top-downish and bottlenecky, given how big and diverse and active 
the repository will eventually be.)

    Stephen> If I had to choose between existing templates/models I
    would combine Facebook, Kickstarter, PayPal, the X-Prize
    Foundation....then add in a little TED and some Burning Man. 

Ned> Interestingly (now that your post has highlighted it), I am 
noticing that none of those platforms offer any significant support for 
reaching public decisions through rational discourse at the scale of 
populations, nor would any combination of them offer such support.

    Stephen> It seems to me that it would need to be it's own entity in
    order for it to adequately surmount the possible influence any
    vested interests. 

Ned> If by separate entity you mean that the network/platform/process 
should have no connections to or dependence upon existing corporate or 
government systems, I heartily agree.

    Stephen> I feel there should be an *emphasis* at the beginning to
    encourage sustainable co-creative awareness and evolution. But those
    can be very subjective projections. At some point those who develop
    it will have to let it go and trust the collective mind to
    intelligently self-organize, regulate and maintain itself. 

Ned> Yes. Absolutely.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen, I am seriously appreciating your post and this interaction -- 
Great Stuff!


------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 6/18/2013 8:04 PM, Stephen Coffman wrote:
> In my mind the combination is:  a social network, a fundraising platform/foundation, and a self-organizing crowd sourced *process*.
>
> as in....
>
> Develop a global internet *organization* that funds specific projects by rewarding the people/groups that create the most widely supported proposals.
> Make crowd-sourcing the *collective mind* fun.
>
> whereas...
>
> Each person/group gets a webpage where they can describe themselves, their vision, their proposal(s), their projects, their community, etc, etc, etc.
>
> People can "like" each others projects, watch them as they progress, make pledges to them, "share" them with others, help develop them, and ultimately vote for them.
>
> *Meta-governance* drives the process....makes it easy...keeps it clean, organized, and open.
>
> The nuts and bolts of the organization/process are managed by members of a *steering committee* who are selected and voted for by the entire network and have a term of one cycle.
>
> The process is cyclical. It moves through stages that line up with the natural cycle....and culminates with a global celebration (maybe Summer Solstice) where the crowd sourced/crowd funded *summit document* is *posted* and read.
>
> Following the celebration, the *advance* begins. Proposals reaching those criteria decided on by the network get funded and awarded.
>
> And then the process continues on....as decided by the most recent iteration of the *document*.
>
> There are project proposals, and process proposals.
>
> Project proposals can be anything...and made by anyone. The network is open to everyone (individuals and groups).....unless of course the *network* decides otherwise. The organization/process supports project development in a variety of ways.... making it fun, easy to source, and simple to find others of *like kind*.
>
> Process proposals can be made by anyone. If they reach a certain threshold of agreement they can alter the *process* of the network.
>
> The organization tracks everything and makes it all available on the main webpage where access to the entire *document* resides. No hiding out!
>
> If I had to choose between existing templates/models I would combine Facebook, Kickstarter, PayPal, the X-Prize Foundation....then add in a little TED and some Burning Man.
>
> It seems to me that it would need to be it's own entity in order for it to adequately surmount the possible influence any vested interests.
>
> I feel there should be an *emphasis* at the beginning to encourage sustainable co-creative awareness and evolution. But those can be very subjective projections. At some point those who develop it will have to let it go and trust the collective mind to intelligently self-organize, regulate and maintain itself.
>
>