Decide on democratic structure

[nottrobin]

oatman suggested an governing council in his seminal notes. There may be objections to this, in favour of a more democratic model.

In either case, do we actually need to decide now? To what extent does the democratic model need to be detailed in the charter? Also there's no reason why other work can't start without this being decided.

[0atman]

It's difficult to decide if this was where we got to at the end of day 1, but here we go:

Users vote on a charity to add
After the votes are tallied, the trustees convene and discuss the suitability of the charity, they can only veto the communitity's decision if:

1. It is in clear violation of the Charter
2. There is 100% agreement.

If it does not strictly adhere to both points, the charity is passed by default.

Chat log:

18:02:28 @danyilmaz | so, in summary...
18:02:41 @danyilmaz | users vote on which charities
18:03:04 @danyilmaz | once the votes hit a threshold, it bubbles up to the trustees
18:03:09    @oatman | end of the month, yeah
18:03:48 @danyilmaz | the trustees investigate the charity and if it does not fit with the charter, it isn't added (we all agree to veto it)
18:04:12    @oatman | yep
18:04:14 @danyilmaz | if it does fit with the charter, we throw it back to the users asking for a yay or nay vote on whether we add it to the system
18:05:04    @oatman | right
18:07:11 @danyilmaz | that sounds like a reasonable process for adding new charities to me

[0atman]

the governing council is not voted by the public, however the trustees can vote out or in a member with a 100% vote.

[0atman]

Should this sort of information be in the charter?

[nottrobin]

I'm wondering how much it's possible to let this stuff grow organically? Currently the community is just us. And if anyone else joins us any time soon we actually retain all the power for the time being because we have access to this central repository.

We will need to create community functions as the community becomes more than just us to engender a sense of ownership - a community won't exist without that - but is this a thing that could be gradually grown as we go along?

I suppose this is sort of regarding oatman's question "should this sort of information be in the charter". Maybe I'm sort of arguing that it shouldn't. Maybe the charter should contain the distilled central principles, like "we have a schoolboy-like crush on democracy", but we should keep actual solid rules for the community in a more volatile and changeable document.

I guess I'm thinking that, in line with several agile philosophies (Incremental Design, RERO, MVP), we should delay all non-essential decisions as far as possible to get on with the actual work.

Thoughts?

[0atman]

That sounds good, keep the charter about principles, get on with work.
On the former, I just read this:
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html

[ghost]

I especially like sections III and IV of the Earth Charter.

[0atman]

Huh, that last comment was actually me. I guess if I reply via email, it assumes I'm the blackgate foundation.

[0atman]

Also, we have this going on
https://github.com/BlackgateResearch/cm-website

[0atman]

Reading mine and Karl's notes, we could have been describing the Foundation!

[nottrobin]

Totally. It could well have been describing this. Definitely some good shit in there. We should fork.

You know, we've been acting as if BGF and the charity project are one and the same. Actually I'm thinking the charity thing should be a project of (by?) the foundation. The charter is a charter of the foundation, but the project will have its own principles and practices, which are community built, which are separate from (but similar to) those of the foundation.

This allows flexibility in a few ways:

• We can allow the community greater control over the project without fearing for the good Blackgate name
• The project can potentially split off at a later date leaving the foundation intact
• Most importantly, we can think about the charter more in the abstract - in isolation of any system of governance.

Decoupling FTW!

[deadlight]

That's a very good point
On 12 Apr 2013 18:58, "Robin Winslow" [email protected] wrote:

Totally. It could well have been describing this. Definitely some good
shit in there.

You know, we've been acting as if BGF and the charity project are one and
the same. Actually the charity thing should be a project of (by?) the
blackgate foundation. The charter is a charter of the foundation, but the
project will have its own principles and practices, which are community
built, which are separate from (but similar to) those of the foundation.

This allows flexibility in a couple of ways:

• We can allow the community greater control over the project without
  fearing for the good "blackgate" name
• The project can potentially split off at a later date leaving the
  foundation intact

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/2#issuecomment-16307663
.

[0atman]

I'm not again' it

[0atman]

Just a note from chat:

11:13:44      @nottrobin | personally my principles are focused on global equality, global thinking            │
                         | (anti-nationalist), sustainability (zero-growth), utilitarian state, reabilitation  │
                         | over punishment                                                                     │
11:13:53      @nottrobin | just thought I'd get that down                                                      │
11:14:53      @nottrobin | I suppose there might be room for nonviolence, anti-poverty, environmental          │
                         | responsibility and secularity of state in there too                                 │
11:16:24         @oatman | agreed                                                                              │

[0atman]

\section*{The Conscientious Mechanist Oath}
I most solemnly and sincerely declare my intent to embody the values
of Conscientious Mechanism:

\section{Morality}
I will uphold moral values without exception and guide others 
similarly. I will never impose on others that which I would not choose for myself.

\section{Responsibility}
I will take full responsibility for my actions, and accept the consequences of them.

\section{Mechanism}
I will endeavour to further my understanding of all things, with the 
knowledge that all things are ultimately understandable.

\section{Self}
My body is the tool with which I realise my intentions. I will hone both my 
body and mind in order to become a paragon of the virtues of Conscientious 
Mechanism.

\section{Integrity}
My actions will always reflect my intent; my word is my bond.

\section{Judgement}
I will judge a person solely by their actions, taking no heed of preconceptions.

\section{Information}
I will fight for universal, unrestricted freedom of expression and ensure that information that benefits humanity is disseminated. Free expression is the foundation of a just society.


\section{Authority}
I will constantly question authority. I will not impose arbitrary authority on 
others nor will I accept the same.```

[nottrobin]

I think it's been decided that "democratic structure" is too specific a topic for the charter. This discussion has now moved on to defining a set of values for the foundation.

I think this discussion should be had in the more relevant issue #3. I'm closing this issue.