Introduction and evolve: Complex Governance Framework

This thread is to discuss a complex-systems approach to governance. The goal is to use emergent properties for participatory self-organisation in distributed governance systems.
This means a direct-democracy with approach with simple rules of coordination between it’s participants to allow for coordination and agency at scale. Please engage to improve the process, be constructive with proposing potential pilots and engage in direct communication if you wish so.

See introductory talk here
This covers the complex systems approach and shows on a very high level the four areas of attention to identify governance processes to serve those areas which are namely:

  • Signaling (Perception)
  • Proposing (Sense-Making)
  • Decision making (Agency, allocation of resources)
  • Monitoring and Feedback Loops

I personally believe that we need to think about humans in those governance systems as sub-systems. Like cells in a body they are the smallest unit of the system. The rules by which they operate will determine the emergent behavior of the overall system.

Therefore I wrote a medium article about belief-systems. I believe those listed beliefs are beneficial for collectively organised systems. I’ll link as a reply to not exceed maximum two links per post.

This governance-framework approach follows certain design criteria which are also laid out in the seven beliefs medium article added to this thread as the second reply. I would like to write down the most important ones in bullet points here to make the more accessible:

  • Avoid accumulation of power by introduction of high concurrency, locality and equal rights for engagement
  • optimize for participation by allowing everyone to be heard
  • Allowing for credibility by allowing for the emergence of coordination groups which have local moderation power and are able to agree on their own rules for their collaboration
  • It needs to be scalable to allow for global coordination to tackle existential risks of global scale, while allowing to follow a subsidiary principle to allow for the resolution of issues on the smallest scale possible
  • The governance systems facilitates communication between participants while being aware of the participant’s state. This is required to identify collaborative and competitive agents which use different governance processes for coordination.

Attached is an example of this process from a customer project I work with. It’s in German, pardon for that, but if you go the extra mile you see an implementation designed for jira. This implementation does not favor voting for legitimization but selected management with authority. But this is replaceable with committees and defined quorums. There is a large spectrum for pilots to try out other implementations.

Many thanks to my colleague Aeon Hochberg who helped me with the creation of this process. This work is owned by if you want to use this you’re free to do so while referencing original Author ( assets GmbH Tim Bansemer, Aeon Hochberg).

The link to my medium article about the 7th believes (perceiving humans as sub-systems).

fascinated by projects of this nature — philosophically, i’ve reduced global (ie inter-community) “laws” down to 3 main principles

1: no violent assault against members of other communities (without their enthusiastic consent)

2: no destruction or stealing of resources from members of other communities (without their enthusiastic consent)

3: absolute freedom to be released and freedom to move on from a community without being coerced or held hostage

these 3 i figure would cover most global (ie inter-community conflict)

the only one i haven’t yet reconciled is how to settle conflicts about “children” because it is hard to determine a universally objective way to define when a child is not a child anymore or at what age (eg 18, 21) a human has the right to defy their parents or community and assert their own individual sovereignty

or when an “outsider” has the right to determine a “child” is being unfairly treated by their parents or community and therefore interferes and tries to “free” them