Consumerium governance: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[[Consumerium]] [[governance]]''' is how it runs itself. Because Consumerium seeks to empower [[consumer]]s to affect [[corporate governance]] and perhaps [[government]] attitude to | '''[[Consumerium]] [[governance]]''' is how it runs [[Consumerium:itself|itself]] - the [[protocol]] that keeps everything "fair and above board". This should be as close to a [[formal protocol]] as possible. | ||
Because Consumerium seeks to empower [[consumer]]s to affect [[corporate governance]] and perhaps [[government]] attitude to [[trade]], it should be a very good example of governance responsible to our [[values]]. Whatever they are. | |||
It is clear that Consumerium has and will continue to have a [[Consumerium:Systemic bias]] based on the values of the people building it. This must be inverted, by applying a counter-bias in the governance protocol. Specific issues in Consumerium governance are: | |||
*choice of a [[Consumerium board]] - by default now it is just [[User:Juxo]] or "Chairman Juxo" or "Chief Gardener Juxo" or "Janitor Juxo" or whatever title he likes. ''see [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] for debate on one-man rule over there.'' | *choice of a [[Consumerium board]] - by default now it is just [[User:Juxo]] or "Chairman Juxo" or "Chief Gardener Juxo" or "Janitor Juxo" or whatever title he likes. ''see [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] for debate on one-man rule over there.'' | ||
| Line 11: | Line 15: | ||
*picking the right balance of tools, rules and fools. We hate [[w:bureaucracy|bureaucracy]] for practical reasons, but sometimes zero-bureaucracy (like [[GPL]]) just leads you into more control by official bureaucrats and wasting your life defending your work. High-bureaucracy (like [[w:Business Software Alliance|Business Software Alliance]]) has some benefits but is mostly just oppressive. [[w:Consortium|Consortium]] usually fall in between and balance a little more bureaucracy and obligation up front with a way to manage unforseen events later on, the main reason to even consider '''governance''' important. | *picking the right balance of tools, rules and fools. We hate [[w:bureaucracy|bureaucracy]] for practical reasons, but sometimes zero-bureaucracy (like [[GPL]]) just leads you into more control by official bureaucrats and wasting your life defending your work. High-bureaucracy (like [[w:Business Software Alliance|Business Software Alliance]]) has some benefits but is mostly just oppressive. [[w:Consortium|Consortium]] usually fall in between and balance a little more bureaucracy and obligation up front with a way to manage unforseen events later on, the main reason to even consider '''governance''' important. | ||
Eventually a [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take over from the founders | Eventually a [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] must take over from the founders, and regulate the '''Consumerium governance''' protocol in a fairer way than any of us can manage - we are not so foolish as to imagine that this means always relying on the original [[Consumerium board]]. It must be assumed that eventually the project is too complex and contentious to be "controlled" by anyone, and that the organization/board is primarily trying to [[obsolete itself]]. This probably is its ''only'' "job". A [[Transparent Consumerium]] would use the CGO only to resolve disputes that arise about the CGP fairness. | ||