Pondering how democratic tools & rules are only as good as they can reflect a group's consensus.
The #benevolentdictator model in open systems, ie FOSS & now fedi instances, despite problems (centralisation, burnout), remains compelling. It could also be a Team with control (as with post-BDFL projects like CiviCRM) – the key is decision-makers have to reflect consensus. Because it's all open, they know the community can depart/fork with relatively low cost (unlike the Zuskian/techbro dictator).
With 51% and then 56% of #socialcoop voting to #defederate Meta, but a block & a bylaw mean we'll actually federate or vote again, reminds me how #digitalsociocracy can empower those with the most free time (ie not working single parents), those who use English best (ie not maj. world), or those who can exploit rules & tools to suit themselves. In the end many donate time yet decisions often stay unmade. Or when they do, no-one takes ownership of them, so it's harder to cleanup/fix if a mistake.
@nicol the free time thing is huge, and definitely something I've run across in a lot of activist/eco/Quaker groups where most of the decision making does end up falling to retired people or full-time activists and doesn't necessarily reflect the needs of people with less free time
@afewbugs Totally! Someone who sets up coops and mutuals for a living when I was asking for his views on #platformcoops once advised me something like: "set up a worker coop, yes, always! But a user-coop? All you will do is empower retired people, those with private-wealth, and people who like the sound of their own voice, to decide everything."
None of this meant as an attack on [#sociocracy, which I think was designed as a consensus system when everyone is in a literal room together… & def not #mutualism which feels to me the closest political theory to reflect the fediverse. Things here are both common & owned in overlapping groups with some shared principles. I'm personally v interested in & grateful to learn from this exploration of digital democracy beyond Git's Issues+PRs (aka corp governance motions) & Merges/Forks (aka votes).]
@dajb ah, ok - sorry. I did a workshop at Mozfest once and it felt the goal was to discuss things in ever bigger groups until everyone was on the same page. Anyone could block the whole process so there was a need for consensus. But I might have forgotten some key details! It felt that this ability for one person to block the democratic expression of 120 people's votes had more in common with sociocracy than one-member one-vote coops?
@dajb Amazing! I think it was run by Kayleigh from Outlandish.
Thanks for the link, that's helpful. It sounds like the sociocratic approach would be 'we will federate/de-federate - do you object?'. But this quote seems very appropriate!:
"the ideal approach if your group has got time to mull things over and get everyone on board. It’s difficult to do well when you’ve got more than 10 people, though, and it’s easy for one or two people to derail the process."
@nicol Yeah, I feel like people need to understand what is a preference and what they absolutely can't tolerate.
In general, people conflate the two and it descends into "you must 100% agree with my opinion" (even if they don't really care too much about what's going on, it becomes a power/status thing)
@nicol@dajb hope you guys don’t mind me jumping into your replies here, I’m just a curious outside observer: can I ask how you’re making decisions via voting (with Loomio)? Do you have a yes/no system, or something more nuanced? How do people propose changes? With many people those proposed changes discussions branch out, how do you record those and bring any discussion outcomes all together into one updated proposal?
Add comment