- From: Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:03:31 -0700
- To: Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFmmOzetVFMcCcct6EXhX6wXgqdUp6AJkyrn0+wSuV4Kg47CXw@mail.gmail.com>
I swear you all are lucky I have a soft spot in my heart for your extreme weirdness. This is not at all how I thought voting would go down. But yes, if in the future the community decides on a Rajneesh cult/cheese-making/electoral college/blockchain voting system, then goddammit I will help make that happen. On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:16 PM Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com> wrote: > First, I wanted to thank Manu and Digital Bazaar for hosting the meeting > system for so many years. It was a significant contribution! > > Second, about voting and governance... a simple one member/one vote model > is fine for now, and we only need something more exotic if there's a chance > that a bad actor wishes to subvert things by leveraging the "hope for the > best" voting rules. The best example I've heard of, for what a bad actor > can do to an optimistic collective, is what the Rajneesh cult did to a > church in Laguna Beach California. They moved a large number of cult > members to that area, posed as Christians and infiltrated the membership. > Eventually, it voted out the board and turned the church into an ashram. > Obviously, lawsuits followed. > > If the chairs feel that it would be wise to install a safeguard – for > example, using the UN model with a "security council" that can veto things, > installing a poison pill into the charter, or establishing a "separation of > powers" system like the US government. However, the model I like the best > for decentralized management of the commons is based on Elinor Ostrom's > work (https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Ostrom.html). > > One of the best pieces of work on public choice was done by Elinor Ostrom > of Indiana University, *Governing the Commons*. Her best example is the > Swiss alpine cheese makers. They had a commons problem. They live very > high, and they have a grazing commons for their cattle. They solved that > problem in the year 1200 A.D. They have a simple rule*: If you’ve got > three cows, you can pasture those three cows in the commons if you carried > them over from last winter.* But you can’t bring new cows in just for the > summer. It’s very costly to carry cows over to the winter—they need to be > in barns and be heated, they have to be fed. [The cheese makers] tie the > right to the commons to a private property right with the cows. > > In this case, what we can do is provide a "proof of work" staking process, > by requiring voters to have actually attended one workshop and/or have > contributed a minimal number of comments on the discussion forum. Or > whatever else the chairs and membership decide. > > Moses > > > > > > On 6/10/20 10:55 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > > Dear W3C Credentials Community Group, > > I'm sending this email as a representative of Digital Bazaar based on > our concerns related to allowing multiple individuals per company to > vote. As some of you know, W3C Member voting polls (a different process) > limit voting to one vote per company. This ensures that organizations > cannot pack a room with employees and skew the outcome of a vote. The > CCG has chosen to do individual votes, which we believe is a fitting way > for a community group to pick its leaders. > > This triggered an internal ethics discussion at our company, which we > are sharing in the spirit of being transparent about the guidance that > we've given our employees. > > The question raised in the company was whether or not we were voting on > our personal behalf or on behalf of the needs of our company. We > explored voluntarily restricting our organization to one vote, which > almost immediately led to concerns around vote suppression among > employees. We explored voluntarily restricting our organization to only > the people that are actively involved in the work here, which led to > concerns around inclusion. > > Ultimately, we decided that the only choice aligned with the morals of > our corporate culture is to publicly state that Digital Bazaar (the > corporation) will not be participating in casting a vote in this > election. Our employees and contractors, however, are urged to make > their own decision on whether or not to vote and, if they choose to > vote, to do so according to their personal conscience, with no direction > from Digital Bazaar. > > We are stating this on this mailing list to ensure that it is in the > public record. I realize that this may come across as being overly > concerned about a simple community vote. Nevertheless, this vote is > setting a precedent and we want to make sure that we are being > upstanding citizens in all communities in which we are involved. We also > recognize that other corporations in this group may not choose to do > this, and that is their choice. > > On behalf of Digital Bazaar in my capacity as CEO, > > -- manu > > > -- > > *Moses Ma | Managing Partner* > > moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com | moses@futurelab.ventures | > moses@ngenven.com > > v+1.415.568.1068 | skype mosesma | *linktr.ee/moses.tao* > <http://linktr.ee/moses.tao> > > FutureLab provides strategy, ideation and technology for breakthrough > innovation and third generation blockchains. > > Learn more at *www.futurelabconsulting.com* > <http://futurelabconsulting.com>. For calendar invites, please cc: > mosesma@gmail.com > > > Or whet your appetite by reading *Agile Innovation* > <http://www.amazon.com/Agile-Innovation-Revolutionary-Accelerate-Engagement/dp/B00SSRSZ9A> > | *Quantum Design Sprint* > <https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Design-Sprint-Application-Disruptive/dp/1799143864> > | my blog at *psychologytoday.com* > <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-tao-innovation>. > > NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT > OF THE TRANSMISSION. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, > DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY > PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN > E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THIS EMAIL SHOULD > NOT BE CONSIDERED BINDING; HARD COPY DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO CREATE > LEGALLY BINDING COMMITMENTS. FOR CALENDAR INVITES, PLEASE CC: > MOSESMA@GMAIL.COM >
Attachments
- image/png attachment: FLClogo.png
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2020 22:04:11 UTC