Re: [sudo-discuss] a one-page doc on do-ocracy, and a question

Hey Danny. Thanks for this! and not just because it's info-graphic. Especially alongside the Board conversation taking place, I'd be interested in having a more shared sense of what do-ocracy means. Not in an encyclopedic manner, but a clear and conspicuous outline of Sudo social norms. There's a lot to add to and comment on, but the major thing I've been hung up on recently is what a 'deliberative do-ocracy' would look like. A consensus decision-making and project prioritizing collaboration with collective goals and general accountability, that gets cool shit done. Relatedly, I think Matt H.'s compelling arguments in favor of a leadership oriented Board on the other thread are worth taking seriously. I differ slightly in thinking there's a way for the Board to initiate and steer general productivity as separate from consent decision-making. I most agree with the sentiment that If we're gonna have a Board, then let's do it right and leverage the opportunity to get our house in order. It is clear from the nominations so far that this is the criteria people implicitly have mind even when supposedly it was thought to have no significance. Structurally, I'm thinking in particular of the relationship between the European Commission in the European Union and the Council and Parliament as a potential model for the leadership role of the Sudo Board. The Parliament is the proportional democratically elected body and the Council is the representative nation decision-making body (analogous to our Senate). The Commission launches initiatives and lays out the direction of things - substantively having the biggest impact on how legislation is shaped, but cannot (or should not be able to, rather) really make any law without advice and consent of the other bodies. sent from eddan.com On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Danny Spitzberg <stationaery(a)gmail.com> wrote: