This thread is to host conversations on workstream 2 of the IoPA governance design process. Comprehensive information on what that is and how to participate is here.
This thread relates to this section of that process document.
In the last WG meeting we agreed I would arrange a dedicated session for discussion & co-work on the decision making structures. I actually think it would be useful to put in two sessions - the first for discussion as we agreed, the second as more of a co-working session to develop proposals before the next full WG meeting on 21st Feb.
My suggested dates/ times are:
Tues 31st Jan @15.00 - 16.30 UTC
Tues 14th Feb @15.00 - 16.00 UTC
If you would like to attend but that time doesn;t work for you then let me know and we can work something out.
1 Like
Thanks all who joined the call today - we had some interesting & thought provoking discussions. We used this Miro board: Sign up | Miro | Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration
We spent a little bit of time thinking about the question of member selection, acknowledging that this is very important for the decision making structures conversation and we really need someone to take the lead on making progress on that workstream! We then went back to the question of decision making structures, and are leaning in the direction of a representative democracy using the model previously shared with the Governance TF on 20 Dec 2022 as a starting point for discussion.
We have a follow on session scheduled for 2 weeks today, Tuesday 14th Feb, at 15.00 UTC. Please let us know (1) If you would like to attend that session but don’t have the invitation; or (2) If you would like to be part of the discussion but can’t make that day/time.
Following that discussion session, we hope to have an outline model of decision making structure to take back to the full Governance Taskforce meeting on 21st Feb.
1 Like
Thanks for the working session today on Decision-making structures @max_w @TiberiusB @Jbutler-helpful @schutton .
We continued to work on the Miro board Miro | Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration
I also pointed you to slide 24 in IOP Governance 2021 - Google Slides which outlines some design criteria for IOP governance that were agreed following the Warsaw meeting in 2019. Please could you read those before the next meeting - I will see if we can add a slot to discuss in the full Governance Taskforce meeting next Tuesday - please bring suggestions on how they should be updated or what they should be replaced with if you don’t like them.
I’d like to propose next Friday, 14th April at 10.30 EDT / 14.30 UTC / 15.30 BST / 16.30 CEST for a follow-on 90 minute session during which I will share some prepared slides as a starting point for discussion and we will focus the discussion quite narrowly on having proposals to share at the Community wide call on 20th April
@Jbutler-helpful when we settle on a time for the next working session on decision making structures, I’ll reserve the first 10 mins for you to present the ontology you mentioned today - unless you feel that is relevant to the whole Governance Taskforce in which case it might be better to give it a slot in Tuesday’s meeting?
1 Like
I think that the Design Critaria can be deduced from the socioeconomic context in which IoPA evolves and its role.
ECONOMIC DIMENSION
IoPA produces standards, which is intellectual production.
Design principle
Action oriented: The objective of having a governance structure is to enable action in the direction of building open infrastructures that enable anyone, everywhere to participate in production.
Standards require wide adoption. Therefore their creation process must take into consideration diverse input, for these standards to be relevant for a lot of stakeholders. Therefore the creation process must be inclusive, i.e. open, participatory. As a corollary, a lot of autonomy must be granted to participants.
Design principle
Lightweight : We need a non-bureaucratic governance structure that enables people to drive forwards on the topics they are passionate about, with minimum impediment
The creation of standards require specialization. Therefore the creation process needs to be separated in areas of specialization and application - areas of work.
But stakeholders are usually focused on their work and are biased by their domain of activities. they are also self-motivated, which is a required adaptation for them to become sustainable. Thus, there is a need to coordinate between diverse motivations and orientations of a diverse base of stakeholders. Thus, an overarching body is required to project and maintain a common vision, to formulate strategies, to facilitate and coordinate the collaborative work towards achieving shared goals inline with the vision and strategy. I propose that this should be the main role of IoPA. This body must also have a governance role, to maintain an environment conducive to the type of work required.
Perhaps every area of work requires its own minimal governance (rules of engagement) to function properly.
Design Principle
Better together - We are working as a group because we believe that no one person, project, or organization has all of the answers - we want to involve many actors and perspectives.
Standards evolve! Work needs to be iterative and needs to be sustained for a log period of time. A long tail mode of collaboration is desirable in this case.
Design principle
Flexible - Everyone has other things going on that will keep them busy at times, we need to be able to move forwards with whoever is available to participate
SOCIAL DIMENSION
All stakeholders form a collaborative network. If a body of shared values becomes apparent (we seem to be forging that) and rituals emerge within this network (regular gatherings for example, which is already the case), we can talk about a community.
A community needs shared vision, shared values / culture, and norms all reinforced through rituals, sustained through animation. I propose that IoPA takes the function of animation within the ecosystem. As a corollary, IoPA could also offer to defend the shared vision and values of the network, which are things that emerge from interaction of various stakeholders. The role of guardian of social and cultural assets is not to be confused with the messianic role of dictating vision and shared values.
Moderation and conflict resolution are also important ecosystem services in the social dimension. IoPa can also assume this role of keeping the peace within the community / network. Since we’ve established in the ECONOMIC DIMENSION that the creation process must be open, participatory, the guardian and mediation roles must be exercised by implementing p2p or distributed measures. This is to be distinguished from benevolent dictatorship. The emphasis is always put on facilitation and coordination and the action is transferred to the network. For example, ostracizing a bad actor through peer pressure is preferred to banning the actor through platform moderation.
Design Principle
Transparent - Decision-making should be transparent and there should be an opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard
Transparency is required for building immune defense against potential attacks, which is a type of defense that involves all participants. An immune defense is to be understood as an alternative to a gate defense (a filter at the entrance, which is not compatible with the open and participatory nature of the organization required for the task). Transparency means access to information to everyone. Values, norms, available tools and methods, all inform what participants can and should do with the information available and how to act, in case of attack, i.e. guide their behavior towards the preservation of the shared vision and the fulfillment of the overall strategy.
1 Like
From the above I extract the roles of IoPA, as an overarching body.
- ecosystem service of Animation
- Guardian: defend the shared vision and values of the network, which are things that emerge from interaction of various stakeholders. The role of guardian of social and cultural assets is not to be confused with the messianic role of dictating vision and shared values.
- Mediation: keeping the peace within the community / network.
To be compatible with the participatory nature of the production process, the guardian and mediation roles must be exercised by implementing p2p or distributed measures. This is to be distinguished from benevolent dictatorship. The emphasis is always put on facilitation and coordination and the action is transferred to the network. For example, ostracizing a bad actor through peer pressure is preferred to banning the actor through platform moderation.
- Maintain infrastructure - designed and built by the community, to resemble the community, match its needs, compatible with the creation process.
In other words, IoPA ensures the homeostasis of the network, without intervening in its daily activities.
Referring to Governance, the IoPA overarching body should only make decisions related to ensuring the homeostasis of the network. Do we have a economic problem? Is the process of creation of a specific standard bugged down by lack of resources? Then this body should discuss methods to coordinate a network response to solve this problem. Do we have a social problem? Actors don’t adhere to a body of values? There is a recalcitrant actor? Then the body should discuss methods to coordinate a network response. Should this body take direct actions to ban a recalcitrant actor? As the custodian of the infrastructure (digital environment), only if the will of participants is expressed through a transparent and inclusive process the body can exert direct force (ban someone), and if peer pressure measures leading to self exclusion are not effective, for example.
Areas of work can have their own governance bodies only concerned with the creation process, compatible with the body of shared values, inline with the shared vision and the general strategy.
Other governance bodies can be created across areas of work, as needed, if clusters of work areas are required.
What is a member? I propose to call a member a participant individuals, which may act in self-interest or may represent the interests of organizations. Organizations can be listed in support of IoPA, but they cannot be granted membership status. This is practiced in the IP system (patenting): only individuals are considered inventors. They can transfer commercial rights to organizations, but they will be forever recognized as authors / inventors. The current status of corporations as moral persons is problematic, enough history already proves that. As we’re going through this transition towards a networked global society, it is wise to deal with individuals, to see organizations as more or less open networks, of individuals (see Verna Allee and her writings on value networks).
Hello! I responded to this paragraph in the thread on membership, so that people chancing upon information by reading through the forum would find it.