You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A Well Thought Out Governance Model for POB - Let's Start The POB Engine, I Am Putting in Some Fuel

in Proof of Brain3 years ago

I am just a bystander and follow the discussion. You put a lot of effort and thought into your proposal. I cannot really judge it, so I won't. I lack the details and the knowledge.

Nevertheless I throw in an idea.

As voting is crucial to this platform and I am interested in alternative methods of how to come to conclusions/decisions, I would like to introduce you to a method which does not work with majority/preference method but with "lowest resistance value". It's actually a more complex process as it works first with questions instead of proposals (long or short).

The method I link you to is the final process in which a decision is to be made - there are two articles, I wrote about, here and here. At a final stage, it's a very good tool to come to consensus; you'll notice the difference, once you try it out in practice.

In case, you have questions or are interested, please let me know.

Cheers :)

Sort:  

Thank you for sharing this. I appreciate to for taking part in this discussion and putting forward relevant contribution to make this better.

I have read the consensus model proposed by you - 'The way of least resistance' - And It is indeed promising. Though I am not sure if it will be efficient and easy to make decisions on things that present a single option like a single proposal. But I can definitely see it working in some other ways i.e for proposals that put forward multiple choices and to further finetune decision making of a proposal when the concerns/suggestions around its specific aspects are addressed with multiple options. A lot of food for thought for sure.

This is a complete and relevant decision making process. And I thank you again for bringing this into my consideration. And making me learn this amazing process to better administration.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

Hi and thank you for your response,

I would like you to give it a try and see if you can play with it when you work on the above topic/s. Reading is one thing, trying out another.

Though I am not sure if it will be efficient and easy to make decisions on things that present a single option like a single proposal.

If you spend more time with this method, it will also change the proposals you make. Yes or no options, for example, are not given too early, but in the last instance, or not at all, because the process makes them superfluous. Single Options ... that is something to consider to give more than one, no? A single option contains several perspectives which one can reveal.

Beforehand, one formulates statements or proposals that are each evaluated on their own merits. So if you say it's about the feature "downvotes" then there would be, for example, three or four or five statements that are there and you give them your resistance values.

I had started a corresponding experiment on this and put up statements that addressed the issue. So consider them as experimental statements that had the intention to get acquainted with the method regarding a hot topic on the platform.

Thank you again for reading the articles, I appreciate it a lot.

I understand its practicablity, and i have already said it can be desirable at some places.

What I want to point out is that it not just about most efficient decision making, but also more simpler and easy to execute. To be honest what I proposed, I feel is still complex, but it couldn’t be avoided. I might simplify it further if it gets processed.

What if there are 20 different perspectives relevant to 20 voters. It can get cumbersome to conclude and introduces another layer of complexity and delay in decision making. I can think of at least 10 more such points. Like it also has a learning curve. It’s not something people are usually accustomed to like a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. And others.

So yes like everything, it comes with its share of positives and negatives. And it will need some thinking to determine if it would be helpful to POB and this proposal and the current situation of the tribe. It would need to answer a lot more why’s and why not’s specific to the tribe and its growth.

Also, please understand that experimenting it in POB for real is not under my authority or anyone else’s. I have presented something I came up with, its execution depends on the rest of the members and owner. I do not have a conrol over it.

For me , I will surely use this in my personal capacity whenever such a need will arise. And I will think about its use cases and might come up with its implementation relavent to the POB in future propasals, whenever this or some other governace system gets introduced.

At first glance, I told you I find it relevant and and it is a great food for thought. If you want to push it forward, I encourage you to come up with a more comprehensive and concrete implementation specific to POB and create a post. No one here stops anyone from presenting their views.

I hope I haven’t been a miser with my response this time 😛. And provided you an idea about other considerations that need to be addressed beforehand.

Thank You


Posted via proofofbrain.io

Thank you, too.

I have linked three of the articles that could be used as suggestions for future decision-making processes. In my opinion, everything that could be interesting for POB or other activities is contained in these. It's not something that many people have heard of and so when I first learned about the method it motivated me to experiment with it too. When an occasion presents itself, as it did here, I have drawn attention to it. I don't think I would make another more detailed proposal for POB, beyond that.

I had conversations like this two years ago and even then they said they didn't want to waste time. But I think today, as I did then, that this method can basically be a shortener of a decision-making process. Some people have made suggestions that could be dealt with in this way.

Play with it, apply it if it fascinates you too, as it does me. If not, it's okay.

Greetings

I am indeed fascinated by everything new that interests me and makes sense. And this isn’t an exception. But Its application to POB for me still remains a subject to further think and brainstorm. I am grateful to you for taking your time to draw my attention and other’s to this and to engage in the conversation here for a better outcome. This is a new learning for me and I will put it to use and experiment in my capacity. Thank you for sharing the resources to refer to.

Greetings and Best Wishes to You Too
Keep Hiving & Engaging & Showering Love


Posted via proofofbrain.io

Thank you, you are very welcome :)
I appreciate your considerations.

Good wishes to you, too <3

I finally got a chance to read your prior articles about "low resistance" governance.

It reminds me of the U.S. Constitution and many aspects of our U.S. system of governance.

One of the things I sometimes point out to my students is that the U.S. system is intentionally non-democratic.

Democracy, in its raw form, simply means that 51% can oppress and subjugate the remaining 49%.

The makeup of the U.S. Senate, both in representation and in their self-adopted 'rules' (e.g. allowing 41% to filibuster and thus stop legislation favored by 59%) are meant to defend the minority viewpoint.

The net effect is that, in the U.S., the simple majority is able to rule relatively unfettered until such time as they try to do something that is overwhelming opposed by the minority. However, this has been undermined in recent years by the Senate relaxing the 'cost' of the filibuster. A few decades ago, a filibuster required at least one Senator be speaking (i.e. 'holding the floor') for the duration of the filibuster. This meant that filibusters were limited to issues with "Very High Resistance" by the minority.

However, when that 'cost' was eliminated and the filibuster became 'easy', the minority party began invoking it for anything and everything they disagreed with. The net result was that the majority party began eliminating the scope of the filibuster. The Democratic-led Senate in 2013 removed the filibuster from judicial confirmations. Then the Republican-led Senate in 2017 removed the filibuster from Supreme Court confirmations.

This brings up the issue of gaming the system. I haven't thought this all the way through, but my gut instinct is that "low resistance" governance can be gamed, especially if other people's votes are known in advance. If I simply wait until I am the last voter, I can calculate what my relative votes need to be on all options in order to make sure my preferred option is chosen.

On a somewhat different note, I am a fan of Single Transferable Vote, because it generally does a good job of achieving genuine consensus. However, even that can be gamed (especially if other voters' votes are known or can be predicted beforehand).


Posted via proofofbrain.io