Security has a concept called attack surface: the more kinds of exposures, the greater the attack surface. Similarly we can think of governance as having an argument surface: the more kinds of decisions there are to argue over, the less functional the institution will be.
-
I think you refer to lack of or disfunctional governance. Proper governance should include a clear mechanism to make decisions and thus settle arguments. E.g. election rules. Problem only arises when no decisions are made and issues pile up.
-
-
Decisions are mainly power exercises. Even when knowledge sharing is involved, the last word is up to the structures which enforce the decision. Such structures will always need a non-automatable decision making to survive
-
So minimize the ability of such structures to grow in the first place.
-
I agree, and I think that it will be the only workable path to go
-
Technocrats hard at work. First step to solving a problem is knowing you have one. You can't code for problems you don't know exist. Limiting governance isn't a solution.
-
As I understood
@NickSzabo4 it is about automating the most as possible areas for decision making: minimize the area of debateble decisions, is more related, to me with optimize, not to limiting. However, this area to be minimized will never be zero.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It should be. Too bad there is this thing called greed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Mind to mind merge.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and if we incentivize people to share this information it works even better
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.