- From: Robin Berjon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 21:03:54 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
Yes, we've considered governance solutions before. The proposal on the table for that is known as [Garuda](https://darobin.github.io/garuda/). It was designed for a partly different use case, so don't worry too much about the details. The important parts are that: * It is structured to bring constituencies with different (or competing) interests in tension. * It has a threshold for access to vote, to avoid spam/fake contributions from parties with no real skin in the game, but then a one-entity-one-vote model, to avoid plutocracy (if you don't mind me using a blockchain term). * It has guiding principles that can serve to ground discussion and support accountability. * It has a credible way to pay for itself. I don't want to oversell it and I'm pretty convinced that if we head in that direction, whatever we build will be different from that first draft. But after a fair amount of research and having presented the system to a number of people who study this type of arrangement, I think it can work. There's more precedent for this kind of commons-based infrastructure management than people realise, too, though not necessarily in a transnational setting processing the data of 4bn people for a half-trillion dollar industry. -- GitHub Notification of comment by darobin Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/7#issuecomment-1036620868 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 11 February 2022 21:03:56 UTC