A short film about the bigone #XR event

Extinction Rebellion, the-big-one – “is this all the is”

Title: The Spiky Fluffy Debate: Reflections on the Extinction Rebellion Event

Opening shot of London streets bustling with cars and people.

Narrator: In 2019, the Extinction Rebellion movement took the world by storm with its call for urgent action on climate change. Thousands of people took to the streets, demanding that governments take concrete steps to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis. But did the movement live up to its promise?

Cut to an interview with a protester.

Protester: I went to the #XR event thinking that they might have learned from the history of activism about how not to be pointless.

Narrator: Our protagonist went to the event with high hopes, hoping for a clever and spiky fluffy debate that would challenge the status quo. But what did they find?

Cut to footage of the Extinction Rebellion event.

Narrator: Our protagonist found a diversity of #fluffy “education” spaces being pushed over by cars and tourists. The dominant outreach was all dogmatic and fluffy, with NGOs asking the government to act. There was no consensus for direct action, and the police moved the protesters back into narrow “permitted” penned-in spaces.

Protester: The only feeling of empowerment was when people overflowed onto the roads and blocked the traffic for a time. But there was no consciousness for this.

Narrator: The second day was the same, with a very slow A to B march and middle-class protesters in animal costumes. The demands went into the government, and a few days later, they were ignored.

Protester: Hundreds of millions of people are going to die, and billions will be displaced over the next few decades, and this was it?

Narrator: Our protagonist met with the original core UK Indymedia crew, who gave him some background on how the event was organized. The outcome of the NGO meetings was a diversity of strategies, starting with four days of fluffy asking for action, followed by a week of #spicy traditional non-violent direct action led by the “just stop oil” group. But this plan was nowhere to be seen during the event.

Cut to footage of the tiny “just stop oil” tent at the event.

Narrator: Our protagonist searched everywhere for announcements and people making this good plan happen but found nothing. The diversity of tactics was becoming an obvious fig leaf for the NGO crew to push their pointless agenda.

Protester: If any spicy actions came after the government ignored the fluffy demo, then it was not going to get supported.

Narrator: In the end, the event was a disappointment, with no concrete action or plans for the future.

Closing shot of the London streets.

Narrator: The Extinction Rebellion movement may have brought attention to the climate crisis, but without concrete action and a plan for the future, will it make any difference? The spiky fluffy debate may have sparked hope, but it remains to be seen if it will lead to real change.

My text:

I went to the #XR event thinking that they might have learned from the history of activism how not to be pointless. Our online media is very broken so from the information I received I got the impression the might be a clever spiky fluffy debate at the “bigone demo” I was hearing different views with no “facts” in the weeks up to the event I was wondering if I should bring a tents as the was a vibe (hope) that it might be something more than a A to B march. People had said that the were going to take the space around parliament and then refuse to move in till the government excepted the need to do something real about climatechaos. I tried reaching out and searching online to see if something affective like this was planned, but could not find any “facts” or real information.

The dominant outreach was all dogmatic fluffy #NGO path of asking the “government” to act, which was so obviously not going to work that I kept my belief that people could not be this stupid and self-defeating agen. So I keep looking for information that something useful is being planned, I did not find any. So gave up the idea of joining an occupation and instead of a tent and supply’s I packed a small bag full of camera gear and headed to London.

On all the media I use and subscribe to I could not find any info on the event, turning up on the first day people started to arrive, it was a diversity of #fluffy “education” spaces being pushed over by cars and the tourists, the only feeling of empowerment was when people overflowed onto the roads and blocked the traffic for a time, this provided a blessed moment of peace and brought focus free from the car noise, but the was no conciseness for this and the stewards and police moved the people back into narrow “permitted” penned in spaces and the noise and repression of car culture was back to take away our small sense of empowerment.

This was the first day.

The second day more people came, the same #fluffy “education” spaces and a very slow A to B march. It was nice to see the middle classes in their animal costumes, people had gathered, a good thing. But that was it, we were given a bit more space by the police. Our “demands” went into the government, and a few days latter they were ignored.

The were a few more days, I did not go, but from the little I found on my media it was the same.

Earlier at the event I met 3 or the original core UK indymedia crew, they gave me some background on the process of how we ended up repeating such an obviously pointless event in such a time of need for action. It turns out the had been months of #NGO meetings to move the event away from confrontation to being one of “asking for action”, the outcome from the #NGO side was a diversity of stratageys – there would be 4 days of fluffy – the ask – then if (well obviously when) this was ignored there would be a week of #spicy (a new term for #spiky) traditional non-violent direct action #XR protests led by the “just stop oil group”. This was not a bad plan, I was kinda of impressed, a good working example of the spiky fluffy debate, I thought in a moment of hope.

So during the event, I looked everywhere for announcements and people making this good plan happen. I found nothing, what I did find was a tiny “just stop oil” tent, with some teenagers shadowed between the big pushy NGO tents. Agen I was disappointed this “diversity of tactics” was becoming an obvious a fig leaf for the #NGO crew to push there pointless agenda, if any spicy actions came after the government ignored the fluffy demo then it was not going to get supported.

Agen I looked on my media and could not find anything about these actions on Monday or Tuesdays in till my partner who is on Instagram said they were posting a video of a handful of people slow marching round London, this was it. I looked on my media agen but could not find anything about this, looked on XR website, nothing, looked on “just stop oil”, only a email list, telegram channel no information.

At this point I shrugged and though about making this video…

Hundreds of millions of people are going to die and billions will be displaced over the next few decades and this was it… this was it… really this was it?

The risk of co-optation or watering down of the original #openweb values and principles

Talking to the person behind https://spreadmastodon.org/

Had a look through his https://bluem.ventures/ list of projects, it’s all Slacktivism – Wikipedia 2 and #NGO pushing.

Asked him, “Have you taken a moment or two to think this might be seen, on balance, as damage rather than helping the #openweb culture of the communers who built the spaces you are going to be pushing at? It’s important not to be doing blinded Imperialism – Wikipedia coming into a “commons” space.”

Issues on this here Activism can we try and address these issues, to mediate the balance of damage/good before you push the project out, thanks.

#openweb culture comes from the principles and values of the early internet, where open standards and decentralized systems were prioritized over closed, proprietary ones. This culture is based on the idea of a free and open internet, where anyone can participate and create without the need for gatekeepers.

#Slacktivism is a term used to describe online activism that requires minimal effort or engagement, such as signing an online petition or changing your social media profile picture. While these actions can raise awareness about an issue, they are criticized for being insincere and ineffective in creating real change.

#NGOs, or non-governmental organizations, are involved in social activism and advocacy work. However, they are criticized for promoting their own agendas rather than empowering the communities they claim to serve. This can create a power imbalance, where the voices and needs of the community are not heard or prioritized.

We need to think about the #mainstreaming of these issues’ due to the increasing visibility and attention they are pushing in the wider public, move back to the #openweb.

With this shift in attention comes the risk of co-optation or watering down of the original values and principles. It is important to be on guard and maintain a healthy balance, ensuring that the voices and needs of communities are prioritized and that efforts are not insincere or ineffective.

The new #spreadmastodon project needs to balance the damage with the good it does with its outreach project.

The wider #Fediverse relying heavily on a single platform, mastodon or instance https://mastodon.social, can have negative consequences. Leading to a concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few individuals and entities. This can result in issues such as censorship, lack of innovation, and a loss of privacy for users.

Additionally, if a single server or platform is responsible for hosting a significant portion of user data or activity, it could become a target for cyberattacks or data breaches.

Why is Mastodon so dominant in the fediverse?

Q. Why is Mastodon so dominant in the fediverse?

A. It had better #UX and @Gargron running it was an effective communicator at #KISS and built it out as a #4opens project alongside a healthy (white) lie about security and privacy.
The rest of the projects lacked these things – #Pleroma the obverse compaine was ripped apart by the #geekproblem then embraced by the right-wing. #Peertube was stuck in a good but closed development for years. #Pixelfed is a little brother project to #mastodon. Then there are a whole flood of #NGO funded projects that have no community.

Might be useful to see it as we’re having a “KING” problem, then the rest are #feudalism all the way down. This should be easy to fix as its #4opens and all #openweb, but it’s not. Just about everyone is hard #BLOCKING the obvuse need for “democracy” as a path out of the mess #OGB

How is the #NOSTR world doing on this?

A path out of the funding mess

The is an unspoken negative effect of traditional foundation funding agendas on grassroots #openweb projects. These grassroots projects often have different priorities and goals than traditional organizations, and the formal processes used by existing #NGO projects, such as decidim.org and loomio.org, may not be well-suited for them.

#The #OMN team aims to address this issue by focusing on empowering communities through decentralized decision-making processes. Their experience and track record make them well-suited to carry out this mission.

If successful, the #OGB project could have a significant impact on the way communities make decisions in the future. By empowering grassroots movements and organizations, it could help to ensure that their voices are heard and that their needs are addressed.

People destroy things they love, not from hate, more from possession

The mess we make, people often destroy things they love, not from hate, more from possession. Let’s look at a few projects on this path to critique the short fall of potential due to a lack of connectivity and maturity

This is the #fahernista view of the 20-year-old #OMN project, it is full of teenage focus https://anagora.org/distributed-cooperative-organisation and might be interesting if it LINKED, but it does not, flight and scatter to the wind, more to compost.

The distributed cooperative organisation project on https://anagora.org while it aims to provide organizational tools for cooperative, commons-oriented, and feminist economic forms, it lacks the necessary links and connections to be in any way truly effective.

http://disco.coop/manifesto/ This is the #fahernista view of the 20-year-old #OMN project, it is full of teenage focus and might be interesting if it LINKED, but it does not, flight and scatter to the wind, more to compost.

The #DisCO (Distributed Cooperative Organisations) manifesto at disco.coop is the same project run by #fashernistas

https://two.compost.digital/ This is the #NGO #fahernista view of the 20-year-old #OMN project, it is full of teenage focus and might be interesting if it LINKED, but it does not, flight and scatter to the wind, more to compost.

The COMPOST digital magazine (two.compost.digital) is also in similar terms, #NGO and #fashernista path, with no affective linking.

These projects are all #blocking by occupying space. In the #fashernista path, it’s good to see how possessiveness leads to unintended destruction of things we cherish. This reflects a common path of human nature, where love and possession become intertwined, with negative consequences.

“Flight and scatter to the wind, more to compost” these projects, despite their intentions, ultimately dissipate or break down without achieving any goals. The use of “compost” as a metaphor that suggests that in their failure, these projects might contribute to future growth or development in unexpected ways. The hashtag “#blocking” is a call to prevent or resist these ineffective approaches.

Our “common sense” paths are often bad:

This path of possession can easily lead to bad paths in alt organising. Abuse of power, when leadership positions within a cooperative become possessive of their authority, this can lead to corrupt practices and mismanagement, misappropriation of resources, even fraud. The desire to maintain control and cover up misdeeds leads to the destruction of records and falsification of information. Erosion of cooperative principles grow when peoples interests overshadow collective goals, this can destroy the ethos of cooperation. Then trying to fix this becomes much harder with resistance to transparency, and over control of information. This all leads naturally to conflict and retaliation, destructive actions against those who challenge them.

How possessiveness in different forms undermines the collaborative nature of cooperatives, leading to the destruction of trust, resources, and the organisation’s integrity.

The #geekproblem mess we make of #openweb funding

#NGIzero #NGI #EU It’s important to remember in #openweb tech that most funding is poured directly down the drain, all value comes from #DIY culture which is always underfunded. Would be a good idea to try to rebalance this mess. And yes, we are not talking about the #dotcons mess, that’s another subject 😉

The value we are all talking about, the #openweb #fediverse based on #activertypub is a very good example of this issue. The group that pushed through the speck only goes through the formal consensuses process because the #dotcons were not interested in owning the outcome as it had no “value” to them. The speck was done as unpaid, unfunded #DIY labour, this is where almost all value actually comes from when you lift the lid on the current mess.

The importance of #DIY culture and the underfunding of #openweb technologies. It is true that much of the value in openweb technologies comes from the grassroots efforts of individuals and communities who are passionate about creating and maintaining these tools. This can be seen in the case of the #fediverse, which was developed by a group of volunteers who were committed to creating a decentralized and open social networking platform.

At the same time, it is also important to recognize the role that funding can play in supporting the development of openweb technologies. While it is true that much of the value comes from DIY culture, funding can help to support and sustain this culture, providing resources and support to help communities. One initiative that is working to address this issue is #NGIZero, which is a program funded by the European Commission to support the development of #openweb technologies. Through this program, funding is provided to support projects that are focused on creating often #NGO focused decentralized and #geekproblem projects.

Overall, it is important to recognize the importance of DIY culture and grassroots efforts in the development of openweb culture and technologies. At the same time, we should also work to support these efforts through funding and other forms of support, in order to help ensure that these grassroots cultures and the technologies they build continue to thrive and evolve in the years to come.

Looking at the paths out of the current mess

We need an effective way of communicating that all value on the #fedivers is cultural, the tech itself is a product of this #openweb culture. The #activertypub speck is an accident of this culture not being swamped become the #mainstreaming was not interested at the time

We have an increasing number of funders pouring money down the drain in #fedivers tech, when the source of the value #openweb culture that created this new “commons” is swamped by the #mainstreaming agenda.

This #fediforum thing is going to be a hardcore invisible clash of cultures, all the #fashernista who stood back from the #ActivertyPub push for the last 5 years are now flooding in, as are refugees from the encryptions mess. The language might be #fedvers BUT most of the people will not be. Let’s try and create focus, small steps.

#Mozfest Is on if you want to see posers, #fashernista and general #NGO pointless. I did sign up but when the time came to log in I could not be bothered. I do use the browser, though.

We do need to express contempt for what a lot of the assumptions and agenda (often unspoken) our #NGO and #fashernista crew push. Yes, it’s crap and pointless, so please say this, in most cases the “emperor’s” are not wearing any clothes. Express yourself, it’s needed.

The is going to be an increasing mix of #mainstreming people moving back to the #openweb we need much better tools and process to deal with the mess they bring with them as well as our own mess we have here. The is going to be a lot of prat’ish behaviour from both inside our #openweb movement and outside from the #dotcons we need a way to mediate this… as it’s obviously damage dressed up in #NGO clothing.

The problem with this negative circle is that it is self reinforcing, the prats, don’t like being pointed at as prats, and in reaction they dig deeper into prat’ish behaver. This damage is not helpful, we need fresh thinking, what do we do when “our” people act as prats. Ideas please?

The is a solution to this, the #OGB which mediates prat’ish behaver by democracy https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

What is the #openweb

While the commercial web is dominated by large corporations, the #dotcons are what most people are familiar with, there is another side to the internet – the #openweb. In this article, we will explore what the #openweb is and why it matters.

The #openweb refers to the part of the internet that is not owned by corporations. Unlike the commercial web, where large tech companies like #Google, #Facebook, and #Amazon dominate the landscape, the #openweb is a decentralized space where people can create, share, and access content without restrictions.

The openweb is built on #4opens standards and protocols, which means that everyone can develop software or services that work seamlessly with existing tools and platforms. One of the primary benefits of the openweb is that it fosters humane creativity. Because we can all contribute to the open web, it encourages a diverse, liberal, range of voices and perspectives. Openweb technologies like blogs, wikis, and federated social networks have enabled people to connect and collaborate, leading to the emergence of new norms and social movements.

Another important aspect of the openweb is its commitment to transparency, it is a critical tool for promoting #freespeech and #democracy. Because it is not owned by any single entity or government, the openweb is a place where people can express themselves without fear of censorship or repression.

In recent years, the openweb has come under threat from the rise of the dominating #dotcons of the commercial web and the growing power of big tech companies. The commercial web is dominated by a few large corporations that control vast amounts of user data and use it to extract profit. This has led to concerns about, social control, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few tech giants and their agenders.

Despite these challenges, there are many organizations and individuals working to preserve the #openweb. From #grassroots groups such as #OMN to #NGO’s like the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) an international community that develops open standards for the web, while #mainstreaming organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Google funded #Mozilla Foundation are dedicated to promoting a liberal #mainstreaming open and accessible internet.

In conclusion, the openweb is a critical part of the internet that promotes, creativity and free society. It is a space where anyone can contribute and participate without restrictions, and it has played a vital role in social movements and democracy. While the openweb faces many challenges in the face of the commercial web and big tech, it is essential to work together to ensure that the internet remains an open and accessible space.

The Genoa #G8 Summit protest

The Genoa #G8 Summit protest, which took place from July 18 to July 22, 2001, was a significant event in the history of modern protest movements. The protest drew an estimated 200,000 demonstrators from all over the world, who came together to block the event and voice their concerns about the power and influence of the #deathcult in the G8 countries.

The G8 Summit, which brings together the world’s eight most powerful countries, is a controversial event that has long been the target of protest movements. Critics of the G8 argue that it is an undemocratic institution that seeks to set the rules for the world at large, without real accountability to the people it purports to serve.

The protesters who gathered in Genoa were determined to block the event and make their voices heard, and they were met with an extremely violent and heavy-handed response from the Italian police. Dozens of protesters were hospitalized, more were taken into custody after night raids on two schools housing sleeping #NGO activists and #indymedia journalists.

The treatment of those who were taken into custody was barbaric. Protesters were beaten, sexually assaulted, and denied access to medical treatment. Many of those who were held in custody were subjected to psychological torture, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. Despite the brutality of the police response, the protesters remained resolute, Seeing the G8 Summit as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the world.

The Italian government was later brought to trial in the European Court of Human Rights, where it was found guilty of violating the human rights. The court ruled that the police response to the protest was excessive.

The problem with institutions funding the social side of #openweb tech

Almost all our #geekproblem software fails because they are building “control”, where all good societies are built on “trust”. We keep making piles of #techshit because we can’t communicate about this simple understanding #techchurn one way to address this is to fund the social side of tech.

The problem which we need to solve is the institutions funding of the social side of #openweb tech, if we do this now most of this funding will feed parasite #NGO’s rather than anything useful. This is also a problem of the existing funding for coding, it pushes the #geekproblem when it funds anything outside the basics.

We have a mess because our world is messy, current funding plays little role in composting this mess.

That’s the job of people with shovels – who funds them.

Most of our software fails because it is built with a focus on “control”, rather than “trust”, which is the foundation of a good society. This leads to an endless cycle of creating useless technology that we can’t communicate about. To address this problem, we need to invest in the social side of technology.

The challenge lies in funding the social aspect of #openweb technology. Currently, most funding goes to non-governmental organizations (#NGOs) that are not always effective. Additionally, the existing funding for coding primarily focuses on the basics, which perpetuates the problem of the #geekproblem.

Our world is messy, and the current funding plays little role in cleaning up this mess. People with shovels – those who do the work – need funding to make a difference.

A fresh look at #openweb history

For people who like buzzwords

The World Wide Web is a system of interlinked hypertext documents that is accessed through the Internet. #Web01, #Web02, and #Web03 are terms that are used to refer to different generations or phases of the World Wide Web (#WWW).

#Web01 refers to the early days of the World Wide Web, when it was first introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During this time, the web was primarily used for academic scientific, #NGO’s hobbyists and activists purposes and less yet widely adopted by the public.

#Web02 refers to the growth and expansion of the World Wide Web during the late 1990s and early 2000s, as the web became more accessible and user-friendly, and was increasingly adopted for commercial purposes. This era saw the rise of #dotcons, characterized by the growth of social media, mobile devices, and cloud computing. The web had become increasingly interactive and interconnected, and has become a critical tool for communication, misinformation, social control and commerce.

#Web03 was a waste of space, focus and money by the #Encryptionists who in bed with the scammers produced meany still born tech children in the last 10 years.

#Web01.5 refer to an intermediate stage between Web01 and Web02, marking a transition between the early and more experimental phase of the web and its more widespread commercial adoption. Web01.5 refers to a time when the web was still growing and evolving, but had already become more accessible and user-friendly, and was being adopted for more diverse purposes. With #mastodon and the #fedivers over the last 5 years, we are rebooting this web01.5 stage.

The patriarchs of the early #openweb

What is the #OGB

The process is meant to be messy, and there are no set laws or statutes, but instead a growing body of mythos and traditions that people can reference when making decisions. The model also includes the power of recall for both “The Voices” and “The Body” to ensure accountability and maintain trust within the community.

The structure is designed to be flexible, allowing for the redefining of variables and options to suit the specific needs of the community. The lifespan of “The Voices” is flexible, currently with options of 1 year or a rolling 6 month term, and members of “The Groups” can come from “The Body” and the original proposer of the proposal.

#OGB The proposed governance model is based on a combination of traditional grassroots activism and the fediverse experience of federation as a tool for horizontal scaling of social power. It focuses on “sortation” and “core consent” as means to achieve decision making and power distribution, and utilizes the concepts of “The Body”, “The Groups”, and “The Voices” to facilitate the process.

The specific process used to achieve core consent will be determined by the group or community using the tools and variables provided by the codebase.

#OGB “Core consent” refers to a level of agreement or acceptance reached by a group or community on a particular proposal or action. It is not a specific process or method, but rather a general principle that guides decision-making within the group. In the context of The Body, it may be achieved through a variety of methods such as voting, threshold, or other forms of consensus-building.

#OGB Community and the tradition of recall and dilution. The voices are representatives of the body, but ultimately it is the body who holds the power and makes the decisions. It is a delicate balance that is built on trust and tradition, and it is meant to be messy and not a traditional power structure. It is a “native” approach that is designed to work within the decentralized and disorganized nature of the fediverse community.

The groups and voices have the power to make decisions, but they need to work together to build consensus and make effective decisions. The model also acknowledges the challenges of dealing with a disorganized group of individuals and the importance of building a body of mythos and traditions to guide decision-making.

The proposed governance model is designed to be messy and non-hierarchical. It is meant to work with the fediverse’s decentralized structure, and it is built on a long history of grassroots activism. It is not a traditional power structure, and it relies on consensus and recall processes rather than laws or statutes.

#OGB It’s important to keep in mind that this system is built on trust and collaboration, and relies on the stakeholders being engaged and willing to work together towards a common goal. The lack of a formal sense-checking step is intended to encourage decentralized decision-making and empower individuals and groups to take ownership of their own actions and decisions. The recall and dilution mechanisms provide a way for the community to self-regulate and course-correct if necessary.

#OGB The Voices have limited terms and can be replaced by the body, so their power is not permanent. Additionally, the groups and other voices serve as checks and balances on the power of the Voices. This is built into the governance model to ensure that power is distributed and not concentrated in one group or individual.

Messiness: The proposed system embraces the messiness of real-world governance and is designed to work within it, rather than trying to impose a false sense of order. It is built on the principle that power should be distributed horizontally and that decisions should be made through consensus-building and compromise.

#OGB issues:

Prioritization: The proposal system allows for prioritization by allowing the governing body to decide which proposals to take action on and which to ignore.

Spam: The use of standard moderation tools and community flagging systems would help to address the issue of spam.

Centralization: The proposed system takes into account the potential for centralization and addresses it by encouraging participation and giving power to those who actively contribute to the community.

In summary, the governance model being proposed is based on a long history of grassroots activism and federation as a tool for horizontal scaling of social power. The approach focuses on sortation and taking power out of “power politics” by creating a modern take on classic social movement practices. The goal is to work with, not against, this history and avoid the pitfalls of “process geeks” coming in and damaging the movement.

I want to see if there are individuals here who have the skills and interest in helping to build the tools and processes needed for the #OGB project, and if so, to explore potential collaborations and partnerships. I also want to raise awareness and understanding of the project and the issues it addresses, and to gather feedback and input from a diverse group of people. Ultimately, my goal is to bring together a group to build this #OMN

This can be achieved by building bridges and fostering communication between different perspectives, rather than trying to control the outcome. The key is to find a balance between different approaches and allow for diversity of tactics in different situations.

It is important to understand that whatever process or governance structure is used, it needs to work in the messy reality of human interactions. We need to recognize that the need for control is often a barrier to finding solutions, and instead focus on building structures and tools that allow us to navigate the mess and make decisions collectively.

It is a way to empower the community and decentralize power, giving a voice to those who actively contribute and care for the fediverse. By keeping the system simple and easy to understand, it allows for more participation and creativity from users, rather than relying on a small group of individuals or organizations to make decisions. The focus is on the collective and community-driven decision making, rather than hierarchy and bureaucracy #OGB

The goal should be to create a system that is inclusive and that promotes participation, rather than one that is complex and exclusionary. The key is to strike a balance between simplicity and effectiveness, and to focus on the overall goal of empowering the community to govern itself.

It is important to keep the #OGB governance system simple and easy to understand for all stakeholders, as this allows for more participation and engagement. The focus should be on empowering the users and creating a decentralized system that allows for more voices to be heard and for the community to self-govern.

#OGB The lottery system would also help to distribute power more evenly among instances, as it would ensure that smaller and less popular instances have an equal chance of having a representative chosen.

Additionally, the use of human flagging as a way to address potential abuse of the system would also help to ensure that larger and more influential instances do not dominate the decision-making process.

The system would rely on a combination of automatic checks and human moderation to ensure fairness and accountability, while also recognizing the limitations of formal processes and the importance of trust and collaboration. The emphasis is on keeping the system simple, flexible and adaptable to the unique needs and culture of the fediverse community.

In summary, the proposed #OGB aims to distribute power among as many people as possible within the fediverse, by delegating specific tasks and responsibilities to individuals selected through democratic procedures, with the goal of preventing monopoly of power and promoting decision-making through consultation.

The approach is to empower people to take ownership of their governance, rather than providing them with pre-determined solutions. The goal is to create a flexible, adaptable system that can be adapted to the specific needs of different communities and organizations. Trust and collaboration are key elements, as well as a willingness to experiment and iterate. Overall, the main emphasis is on building a governance system that is grounded in the culture and realities of the community it serves.

The #OGB project is meant to reflect the practical, on-the-ground reality of horizontal activism and the fediverse culture. It is not based on idealistic or theoretical models, but on the lived experience of the community.

The development of the project would involve a production/coding team, funding, and testing with a real user base.

The process would involve a lottery system for selecting members, with checks for instance activity and human involvement. The goal is to mediate the shifting of power from the .01% to the 99.9% of the fediverse, and the approach is designed to scale horizontally for use in other democratic structures such as local street markets. The body would be moderated through flagging and standard fediverse moderation tools.

The proposed representative body for the fediverse would be a democratic structure that allows for the delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks through democratic procedures. The body would be composed of stakeholders (instances), users, and affiliates, with a focus on distribution of authority among many people and rotation of tasks among individuals #OGB

In summary, the proposed #OGB allows for any user to submit a proposal which will be visible on the activity stream of the governing body. The body can then decide to take action on the proposal by passing it to a group or forming a new group to work on it. Prioritization of proposals will be handled by the body and the groups, with SPAM being dealt with by flagging and standard moderation tools.

It is important to note that the #OGB is designed to distribute power and decision-making among a diverse group of stakeholders, including instances, users, and affiliates. This can help to mitigate the risk of any one group or individual having too much power and influence over the fediverse.

Additionally, the use of sortition and flagging mechanisms can help to ensure that the voices of the community are heard and that bad actors are held accountable.

If people start to game the system, the solution is to get more people involved, which will dilute the problem. The lottery will shift bad groups out if fresh people of goodwill join. If a user has multiple accounts, it is up to them to resign some of them, so new stakeholders can be chosen.

However, this will be up to the group, as it is tradition. The default will be set, but it’s open to change.

The #OGB system that will allow multiple accounts from a single user to be included in the lottery for selection of representatives for the Body (OGB), as long as they are active and human. The idea is to keep the system simple and easy to code by relying on flagging for blatant abuse, rather than hard-coding restrictions.

When an instance registers, it would appear on the OGB’s activity feed, giving members time to flag or discuss it if needed. Overall, it is important to keep the system as simple as possible and easy to code.

#OGB The key idea is to empower instances to decide who speaks on their behalf, and to moderate as much power downwards to federate responsibility.

The proposed system includes automatic checks, such as whether the instance is online and has been used recently, and whether single-user instances should be counted. There would also be an option for user/stakeholder flagging to question if an instance belongs, based on terms of service.

The challenges of using formal processes, such as those used by #NGO‘s and cooperatives, in #openweb and activism projects. These types of processes can be a bad fit for the fediverse and activism, as they tend to be too rigid and not suited to the decentralized and dynamic nature of these communities.

Existing projects and resources that may be relevant to governance: Loomio, Decidim, Noisebridge, and Sociocracy. Tend to be based on formal consensuses, a bad fit for messy unstructured groups.

The system incorporates principles, such as the use of sortition to select stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders, the use of a “Security Group” to detect bad actors, and “recall” process to remove individuals who do not align with the goals of the fediverse.

The system includes an option to aid/onboard new roles by having an overlap with the old roll-holder where they share the role and the use of tradition and workflow to mediate the “Allocation of tasks along rational criteria”.

“Tyranny of Structurelessness,” helps designing democratic and effective decision-making structures. By delegating specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks, requiring accountability, distributing authority among as many people as possible, rotating tasks, allocating tasks based on rational criteria, and providing equal access to resources and information, the group can ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few individuals #OGB

The #OGB achieves this by limiting the number of stakeholders and users by lottery, for example, 100 stakeholders and 100 users. This would be matched by a smaller number of affiliate, providing a balance of perspectives and interests.

It’s important to note that the number of members in the body can change depending on the situation, the admin group should be able to adjust the pool size depending on the requirement to try different approaches to see what works

The #OGB is representative of the fediverse as a whole, with stakeholders (instance operators), users, and affiliate stakeholders all playing a role in decision-making.

Based on the statistics of a population of over ten million accounts and more than 9,000 instances, it would be difficult for a body of that size to make decisions efficiently. A smaller representative body would be more manageable and better able to make decisions quickly and effectively.

The use of sortition to select voices, and the ability for other body members to flag bad voices, provides a way to detect and address any individuals or groups that may be acting against the best interests of the fediverse.

Additionally, the use of basic security checks to detect sock puppets and spammers, and the ability to “recall” flagged accounts, helps to ensure that the governance body is representative.

The #OGB has several mechanisms in place to mitigate the risks of capture by special interests or bad actors.

By allowing all members of the body to participate in the formation of groups and the formation of agreements, the system is designed to dilute the power of any one group or individual.

The consensus of voices, minus one, is what makes an agreement the “voice of the Fediverse” ensuring that the agreements reached by the body are truly representative of the fediverse as a whole.

Groups are formed around issues that receive a level of support from members of the body, agreements are reached through group discussions and consensus-building. Voices, which are a subset of stakeholders, have the power to both initiate groups and enact agreements reached by groups.

The number of voices is dynamic and would depend on the number of stakeholders, but a small number, such as 3-5, would be ideal to ensure that the system is nimble and responsive to the needs of the fediverse.

The power of the voice in this proposed #OGB system is distributed among different groups and individuals. Proposals come from anyone with an ActivityPub account, giving all users the opportunity to shape the direction of the fediverse.

It should be noted that the idea of sortition and open governance is not new, it is a way of governance that has been used in some ancient Greek city-states and it’s been proposed in modern times as well. However, it’s implementation in the #Fediverse could be a new and exciting way of ensuring decentralized and democratic governance.

Additionally, allowing stakeholders who were not selected by the lottery to still submit proposals for group decisions would ensure that the input and perspectives of all stakeholders are considered.

The workflow described is a way to ensure that the Open Governance Body i#OGB s representative of the fediverse as a whole, by giving all users the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

By allowing users to opt-in to becoming stakeholders, and then using sortition to select a representative sample of users to serve as members of the body, the system would be designed to ensure that the voices of all members of the fediverse are heard.

The use of sortition to select users to be part of the body would ensure a random and representative sample of the user base. And the dynamic balance of stakeholders and users would provide a check on the power of any one group.

The Affiliate Stakeholders would bring additional expertise and perspectives to the table and their members would have to be ratified by the Body to ensure that they align with the goals of the fediverse.

However, it should be noted implementation will be complex #OGB

An Open Governance Body #OGB, would be a decentralized and democratic system for governing the fediverse. The three groups of stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders would provide a balance of perspectives and interests, with stakeholders representing the people running instances, users representing the people using the instances, and affiliate stakeholders representing other organizations and groups within the fediverse.