How to fix the damage to the #openweb from the influx of #mainstreaming funding

The issue around funding and its impact on grassroots and radical projects. The balance between maintaining integrity and openness while navigating external funding is a difficult one. The #4opens provide a guiding framework, but the challenge remains to implement these in ways that avoid the corruption and failure which is normal for the #NGO funding models.

Running projects on minimal funding forces a degree of focus and prioritization that can be beneficial, but, it also comes with limitations. Trust-based models, like those from the direct action movement in the 1990s, show that alternative funding approaches can work, but they require strong social structures, trust, and transparency.

Finding ways to mediate this tension between the potential of funding and the risks it brings is key. What do people think of a more formalized version of those trust-based funding models, could they work today within the #openweb or #OMN?

We start with the assumption that 90-100% of funding on this subject is simply pored down the drain, most of it into pointless NGO projects and #fashernista individuals “careers”. The best #openweb funders I have found recently https://nlnet.nl/ who have money from NGI Zero which is from the EU

https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki/Funding-of-openweb-projects

To fix some of these issues:

* https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/Online-governance- openweb tech from the perspective of a radical, grassroots, social technologist this is distilled into a codebase, as a “permissionless” roll-out of frameworks for social groups to form and see/govern themselves. https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/Statements-of-support

* https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/Statements-of-support Its easy to see that the #dotcons can not be fixed. The #fashionistas who keep flocking to new “ethical-ish” ones are a problem, not a solution. The #4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project. We need to bring this into our funding agenda.

* https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/Open-Media-Network/wiki Simple #OMN is a standards based political software framework to build #KISS and #4opens grassroots semantic web of trust links and flows. We do this by outlining a human understandable workflow and then building apps for real-world use. We are agnostic on the underling technology and programming as long as it is #4opens based.

The #hashtags are from a “prospective” thus push rejection from people outside that perspective

The verticals are unthinking in their hierarchies, which turns the “value” of horizontals into a negative thing. Meanwhile, the horizontals despise the “power” plays of the verticals and take every measure to block their outcomes.

The world, however, is one of balance. Both perspectives have roles and shifting values depending on the problems we collectively need to address.

For those pushing #BLOCKING — a few sips to quench your thirst:

The conversations sparked by these flows are what truly matter. Grassroots structures grow from this collective perspective, feeding into shared social knowledge. The #hashtags act as a net, gathering working groups ready to embrace change and challenge.

In the end, all change and challenge are practical. People who only talk without action are naturally carried to the side streams, mingling until they either join the flow of practical work or fade away.

Yes, in your arrogance, you might call this arrogance — and from a different perspective, you might be right… but still blind. If you’re from the same perspective, I’d say nuts and nutters are only useful as part of a balanced diet. Maybe meditate on that before cracking more nuts. (I’m still refining that metaphor.)

If you enjoy playing games, you can spot the word magic in the #hashtags. If you’re more practical, you can translate them into traditional definitions — for example, #deathcult = neoliberalism, #dotcons = the boom-and-bust cycles of the dotcom era, #fashernista = someone fashionable in any subject. It’s not complex at this level.

The complexity lies in the perspective that weaves these elements into a coherent story. Yes, this storytelling could be seen as arrogance — if you choose to view it that way. But that judgment itself makes you a “nut” from the very perspective you critique.

Circles, magic, nets, outcomes — #OMN

Influx of EU funding into the Fediverse

#Openweb – all together push through, the HARD block crumbles.

Getting a good outcome is hard… feeling this influx of EU funding is going to do damage and little good to the #Fediverse health if it keeps funding as its current agenda.

Though the Fediverse is drifting from its own lifestyle mess…

Let’s try and mediate the funding driven damage.

Then lifestyle driven damage can mediate its self.

Looking for a better social change/challenge outcome and less mess 🙂

unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki/Funding-of-openweb-projects looking at the best funding I have found… not attacking them, opening a conversation on a OBVIOUS issue.

We can also look at the funding that is 100% poured down the drain, but we likely have little influence there.

I like to keep it positive, if possible, BUT a lot of people are #BLOCKING which will create some fire and LOTS of smoke, It’s what social change/challenge looks like… murky…

Focus on #KISS to see through the smoke.

Hard to see how you can do a left wing project without showing the workings

open/trust – left

We fall to easily into

fear/control – right

It’s what the page is about.

Yep, the whole #dotcons side of the EU funding agenda is poison and only feeds the mess.

As I highlight, just about all funding is poured strait down the drain, it’s the normal outcome.

#indymediaback one thing to keep in mind, I think we/indymedia crew learned the wrong lesson from these raids/repression.

We pushed fear/control as a solution, which added to the mess #closedweb

As the #Fediverse shows, open/trust was the path we should have taken #openweb

This ripped the #indymedia project apart, leaving us in this #dotcons mess.

When making judgments, let’s be #KISS, to see through the mess.

Shovels and compost #OMN

Yep, trauma is an issue, why I use basic ways of looking at these things. Then it’s up to the people to build up from this simplicity DIY, a grassroots aproch.

Practical approaches https://visionon.tv/w/nw2pRyvj1vfjx1u4ETNEsw a film i made for the legal support crew of a big campaign. The repression was ongoing and strong. The healing was the mass walking through the police stop and search – this likely mediated a lot of growing trauma…

#Openweb – all together push through, the HARD block crumbles.

Practical approaches, a film I made for the legal support crew of a big campaign. The repression was ongoing and strong. The healing was the mass walking through the police stop and search – this likely mediated a lot of growing trauma…

#Openweb – all together push through, the HARD block crumbles.

Misunderstanding – Out reaching the #OMN #openweb projects.

I start to understand the misunderstanding, blocking many of the people outreaching the #OMN. It’s a DIY project there is the assumption that people will see the need and fill in the missing bits. The “missing bits” have a function, to be filled in otherwise we would be pushing clean non-messy #dotcons world view which is a very different project.

Maybe this is hard to see, but we would be doing something utterly pointless if it is not messy. So people pushing clean are not helping, rather they are #BLOCKING

Must stress the utterly pointless here, as people have done slick/controlled alts many times over the last 30 years and in the medium term this has always proven to be pointless.

It’s a world view problem that’s going to kill us, well lots of us.

Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARiaiyHrijw

Meany people reply to outreach by telling the #dotcons story as if it were common sense… where the outreach is telling DIY, so communication is missing/past each other.

The #OMN is offering tools, people are generally looking for shiny toys a different world view. From the DIY prospective shiny toys are just rubbish to add to the landfill were tools you can build a new world if you are motivated and have care and focus.

To put this bluntly, its #DIY or death as #XR says in the streets. Hope this #KISS aproch helps to build a bridge – up to you guys to hold this bridge in place.

#OMN projects are tools for YOU to change/challenge the world we live/die in.

Been takeing part in online #openweb events – and resisting the urge to bite people.

Looking at this event https://2021.ngiforum.eu Way to meany stuffed shirts, technological fantasists (blockchain) and a lot of #EU money what could go wrong…

Spent a hour looking through the list of participants opening in new tab all that said something interesting. Of these more than 2/3’s had the tag blockchain so closed them, and then looked at the rest, then closed them… as we all know the is little hope in places like this, but worth a look, sometimes you find something useful. Someone has to turn over the tech shitpile to make compost.

Last week attended the online event by the Knight Foundation (huge #openweb funders for the last 10 years) in the USA on #reimagining the Internet. It was 100% about the #dotcons kinda nutty how bad things are in the funded #NGO #openweb world

With this in mind I moved the #4opens to its own space https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki it’s a useful #openweb tool for moving tech projects in to the right pile.

Here are 10 sample #4opens reviews to help you to understand what its about and how you can use this simple way of judging if a project is worth supporting or not https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/issues

Please add to this, sign up for the site and add more or just publish them on your own #openweb site with the hashtag #4opens

UPDATE

Why go to these events? Its about connection to people building bridges and resources for bridge building. The problem is all the resources at these events are poured down the drain and/or consumed by social parasites – the chattering classes.

I spend a bit of time going to the events every 10 years to see if this has changed. COVID-19 and the onlining of the events is a time to do this. This time, like last time, am feeling an “opening” but think the parasite classes are going to be stampeding through it. For a useful outcome we would need a soughted #openweb group to take up space, without this the opening is not going to have any good outcome.

This mythical group does not exist, there are individuals scattered about, but nothing that has much social power to be able to work with/bridge the power politics.

Kinda sad and bad but its where we are at #XR

UPDATE

This strategy can work (up to a point) to get resources, the last time, 10 years ago, I got a big chunk of dosh to set up http://visionon.tv which the remains of is funding the #OMN infrastructure. But this is another story – you can likely find articles about this back on this blog.

UPDATE

In any burocracy there are always a few people trying to get out, its what bridges are for, and there will likely be lots of people on our side who want to get in, also what bridges are for http://hamishcampbell.com/2021/04/16/outreaching-activitypub-to-the-eu-draft/ a post that touches on this bridging subject and why it has value.

UPDATE

Only now reading up on the background of this #EU stuff

“What is Horizon Europe?

Horizon Europe is the EU’s key funding programme for research and innovation with a budget of €95.5 billion.”

No wonder the is such a feeding frenzy of pigs at the trough was wondering why this sudden interest in the #openweb

UPDATE

This comes to mind when talking to just about everyone on subjects like this today “They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.”

The geekproblem – humanity’s and science

Coding projects that come from the humanity’s general fail as they are not technically coherent and build out from abstract ideas without real relevance to lived humanity, they are too disconnected to become relevant to communertys of use.

Coding from science tend to fail because they are inhuman, and are built for mashions. They serve abstract ideas based on numbers and thus can reach only tiny numbers of people and can build no outreach social groups of use being irrelevant to “real/normal” people.

Coding from life has a better chance of success BUT only if balanced with a science based discipline and some academic rigour of soiled social thinking

Let’s look at examples:

Knight News challenge was captured by academics and thus has produced a slew of irrelevant projects – the money and focus was poured down the drain.

Diaspora was a pure geekproblem project so found few humans to use it, the resources were poured down the drain.

Mastodon came from a computer scientist but is a human project based on an existing need/use with competent technical agender. It worked and outreached to normal-ish people. Mastodon for filled an existing human need. Thus has real social change/challenge action and potential – we should/need to learn from this.

What has worked for the fedivers to overcome the geekproblem is the copying of existing #dotcons as #openweb tools. This copying has mediated the gap between the humanities and the sciences by taking existing (bad) human technological relationships and building copy’s in the (good) openweb. In clear contrast peoples attempt to build both #geekproblem and academic #NGO tools has (obviously) failed in the fedivers.

We need to build out from this good/bad relationship and nurture the good and push down the bad – while avoiding the pointless ghettos of both geekproblem and academic dogma being pushed by captured funding agenders.

It’s an interesting challenge to have movement on/in. Current foundation funding agenders have been captured by academics on one side and the geekproblem on the other. Capital (#dotcons) funding agenders are dominating and pushing for aristocratic anti-humanistic outcomes and theological neo-liberal group think.

We need to step out of these #mainstreaming flows to push up the good and push down the bad. We are working to do this at the #OMN we’re trying to bring our lived experience (this is always were the value is) to rethink and re-emergence solutions to the old 4 estates thinking:

* The clergy – while being structurally irrelevant are still are at the core of the social condition – belief.

* The nobility – are a dangerous force for social destruction by control and play a bad role at every level, our #dotcons leaders are the new “nobility”.

* And the commoners – are all of us, we need to see this more, our best/worst governance is democratic – we need to embed this is all our social technology.

* The media – is the tools of social control and the path to social liberation we need to chose where we put our power and our intervention in media.

At the OMN we are practical working on the last two – while fighting for humanism is the first and fighting trench warfare agenst the second. In the end it’s a simple path made complex by the forces we are fighting agenst.

The answer is always #KISS the power is always human, the tools #4opens

#nothingnew an old story we are still working through https://theconversation.com/humanities-and-science-collaboration-isnt-well-understood-but-letting-off-steam-is-not-the-answer-92146 today, it’s a good stage to have this conversation in/about #openweb technology.

From chaos comes order

“You first need to discover as much as possible relevant items within the desired domain, meaning that everything needs to be discoverable (i.e. it needs to be made available and be accessible, but also the right structure and metadata need to be in place for everything to be properly indexed and categorised)”

The #OMN is set out to solve this problem from the bottom-up: the lived communities define the categories.

The #OMN is a part of the fediverse to grow an #openweb native approach, creating distributed metadata enriched permanent stores of stories and media/data.

Two examples below:

1. A grassroots news project for the fediverse https://visionon.tv/videos/watch/1e221fdf-1e98-4802-a239-c24399dc3411

2. A data-store for an exhibition, that archives grassroots movements history. (ADD LINK)

The project is KISS (keep it simple stupid) and works at a human scale, to build communities of care.

The data is stored within/across the communities and easily accessed.

It’s a discovery thing (EXAMPLE)

The codebase/tool/networks is applicable to any bottom-up communication/categorization and discovery project.

The #OMN is a simple framework that will use many of the existing #openweb tools:

* A searX plugin opens this data/news to a casual browser.

* ipfs can be used to store the large data objects

* ActivityPub is the flow of data objects through the network

We bring the legacy web via RSS and push out flows to the “Internet of Humans”

“From chaos comes order” from getting the right eyes to see the right news, to putting the right historical object into the right box.

A conversation

The children of Thatcher and Reagan are limited in their world views – they have been brought up and nurtured in the neo-liberal #deathcult and have limited experience in the nurturing and socialisation of anything else. Academic and book learning are a poor substitute for evolving in a non #deathcult era, so it is no surprise that they find themselves trapped in the circle of #stupidindividualism

In this #deathcult era, individualism is stupid and individualism makes you stupid. This is a degrading circle that no “self-help” or “whoo spiritualism” can help you to escape.

This manifests like dark “social magic” in many areas:

In social movement we have the take-over of #fashernistas who push “alternatives” aside in their “commonsense” self-interest, building careers and grasping at the illusionists of fame and “influence” they are slaves to #mainstreaming

In tech the #geekproblem has pushed emancipation into darkness. The #encryptionists have dominated alt-tech and the #dotcons of the #mainstreaming path, both are born of this world view and the socialisation that keeps it from sight.

The mainstream is blind in its worship “there is no alternative” for #mainstreaming agendas in this era. Our words and actions are simply spewing shit while the world burns, our ecosystems die and communities implode in manufactured (for profit) infighting #failbook

It’s actually easy to step away from this mess, the issue is: are you brave enough to fall and WILL your community catch you when you do? (both valid worries i’m afraid).

We need hand-holding and most importantly we need alt-social/tech structures in place to build and bind – all human communities are built/bound with/from these structures.

The #OMN and the #4opens are there as shovel for the shit and binding for the community – neither of these have any power but the power you use them with – the steeping and away and dreaming and digging is all down to you and your community.

#indymediaback is a #openweb project of consensus based radical grassroots journalism

The#IMC project is an affinity group – so we are planing to work through consensus and diversity of strategy to move the project past where it was ripped apart by internal stresses after 10 years of running as a successfully worldwide radical grassroots media project.

To do this we have a #nothingnew policy, beyond moving the project into modern standards #activertypub we need to reboot the project with work flows intact. Thus, we are working to this #UX https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/Open-Media-Network/issues/26 and the original workflows and process.

Of course this can and will be updated as needed, but we have a “chicken and egg” issue that we need a working affinity group/s to reach consensus on where we go. The #indymediaback project is a way of bootstrapping this code/process in #4opens way.

To keep “diversity of strategy” in place, we are using the #OMN framework.

Update

What would a non #mainstreaming movement look like.

* firstly, it would have to get past meany #BLOCKS that are now common sense.

My action is to jump back in time before these blocks solidified and build up from there. Not a bad idea and will likely work if people embrace it.

* Non #mainstreaming tech is SOCIAL/community and needs to step away from the current geek agender to have real power for social change.

#OMN project, we use the #4opens to build from this.

The “cloud” is just a big corporate run data centre that can and will burn down

You do realize that all our data is HORRIBLY centralized and thus could vanish at any moment, come the revolution/evolution/ #climatechaos tsunamis.

Our end plan in the #OMN is that all the content is redundantly stored in the network in a #KISS way, so traditional backup is less important -when it goes wrong, and it will sometimes as we are home hosting. Just boot up a new instance and put your hashtags and user info in and all your content will be sucked back in a #lossy good enough way. This makes home hosting work well enough to scale outward to build a #openweb

Bluesky thinking of a “governance” body of the fedivers

“A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory”

What exists already?

The is a pretty sorted #ActivityPub crew, then some organizing sites/forums, the yearly conference. MOST importantly some “kings”, “princes” a bit of a tech/influencer aristocracy who currently hold much of the “power”.

Where do we go from here?

On online “governing body” to be a VOICE for the #Fediverse – all done #4opens in social code:

For background on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

We have a yearly voting/consensus (online) body made up of “stakeholders”

Who are the bulk stakeholders-representatives:

One voice one instance – if you run an instance you get a vote – put the URL in as long as it’s online last year your vote counts.
The is then an equal/matching number of votes based on a “user” lottery – have to opt in by adding your account name. This is refreshed every year.

Then we have other more “affiliate” stakeholders that have to be “ratified” through the body

Codebases – could be factored by installed based on instance registered above. Over a basic threshold and the body agrees.
fedivers events – any group that regularly runs events gets a “stakeholder” vote based on them doing it last year. If the body agrees to this.
fedivers support organizations get a vote if the body agrees to this.
activitypub standards crew – get votes through all the rest and can have a vote as a founding fedivers org.

Groups and individuals could get more than one vote – which is fine.

This would give us

A representative “stakeholder” body that could accept proposals and make decisions.

How would the body work?

#techshit all ready has way to much LOOK at ME look AT me. I don’t like competitive elections as the shit float to the top

Let’s do a LOTTERY- from these “voters” that makes up the body a lottery decides 3-5 as #spokespeople then leave um to get on with it. There is a tick box to opt out of being in the “spokespeople” lottery, so you have too wont to do the extra work if you don’t want to, its opt out rather than opt in – this is important.

They have the power to speak for the body and thus the #fedivers and can make policy decisions on consensus minus one process. Or put policy directly to the body to be voted (majority vote) on by the stakeholders. (of course they would be subject to recall/impeachment if they fuckup too much, say proposal and 2/3 vote of the body)

Levels of “voice” anyone with an #activertpub account can put in a public proposal to be voted on by the stakeholders – if it jumps that hoop then it can be edited/pushed by an open group of stakeholders though a semiformal #4opens online process to jump to an agreement. Agreements are acted on by the “spokespeople” up to them to take these ideas forward? If non are interested better luck next year with your agender and new spokes people.

Q. what dose digital online Community “democracy” look like

If it does not have elephants running around throwing paper planes it’s likely the wrong structure.

NOTE: of course these alt-ideas have been tried in the offline world, and they generally DO NOT work. But this is no reason to go down the dead end of “liberal” foundation governances that also does not work. People are trying these ideas in Citizens’ assemblies so no issue not to try them online.

Lotteries take the “power” out of power politics… likely worth an experiment.

Compost and shovels are needed.

The power of the voice

User proposals are excepted by anyone who has an activertypub account- just an idea – this can become a group.
User groups – a part of the process, these come from ideas getting a level of support of the stakeholders.
User agreements come out of groups these can then be enacted by the spokes people if they are interested.
Spokes people can start groups to reach agreements and can enact agreements.
Consensus of spokes people (-1) makes agreements body wide.

What are the risks:

* need basic security and checks – to see if an instance still exists and is real. If a member account is actively posting or a pulpit – all of this can be done with flagging some of them by code some by people – flags stuff goes to the “security group”

* Groups can be captured by agenders – being open to all stakeholder members mediates this – we solve swamping by having a dynamic short non-voting time based on the number of new members in the group.

* Bad group of spokes people, it’s a lottery, it’s up to the groups to influence and as a last resort “impeach” if one goes a new one is chosen by lottery.

* The actual number of spokes people are dynamic depending on the number of stakeholders but between 3-5 is likely a good number.

UPDATE

The body is made up of stakeholder one for each instance – you wont a voice you run an instance and register it. This is clearly the voice of the #Fediverse as they are the people running it.
This is then balanced dynamically by the same number of “users” who are interested in the process, they are chosen by lottery from the registered accounts. Your choice to register or not your account as a possable stakeholder.

On registration the is a box you can untick if you do NOT do this then you are in the lottery to get “governing positions” Sortition – Wikipedia for a background on why this path.

Only people who want to be part of the governing body AND play an active role are enrolled in the lottery.

You second point “common voice” comes from the working groups, agen are made up of ONLY people who are interested in playing a role.

“serving the humans trying to communicate.” we get out of the way and let the humans work it out – we provide structer for the groups, we don’t define the groups.

SocialHub though an interesting tool has strong tech aristocracy which is not surprising as this is how almost all open source project run – the Fediverse is something different which is why we do so badly at governance. Let’s continue to use the SocialHub for #ActivityPub organizing and possibly governance though it has no tools that I have found for the governance.

The money is a subject up for discusern, am just using https://opencollective.com as example.

Help would be needed to do the proposal and #UX

UPDATE

The work flow would be:

Sign up for the site, then don’t untick the box for “do work” if you become a “stakeholder” every time a position opens the lottery picks a stakeholder to fill it if it is you and you would like to do the job – get to it. If you do not wont the job then resign and the lottery will pick a new person.

If you are not picked by the lottery for a job opening the is still a meany things you can do as a stakeholder in the groups. If you are not picked as a stakeholder you can still put ideas for the stakeholders to make into group decisions.

The outcome is something much more representative of the #Fediverse than we can currently think about let alone implement.

The is #nothingnew in this idea or implementation, some examples from Wikipedia

Examples

Law court juries are formed through sortition in some countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
Citizens’ assemblies have been used to provide input to policy makers. In 2004, a randomly selected group of citizens in British Columbia convened to propose a new electoral system. This Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was repeated three years later in Ontario’s citizens’ assembly. However, neither assembly’s recommendations reached the required thresholds for implementation in subsequent referendums.
MASS LBP, a Canadian company inspired by the work of the Citizens’ Assemblies on Electoral Reform, has pioneered the use of Citizens’ Reference Panels for addressing a range of policy issues for public sector clients. The Reference Panels use civic lotteries, a modern form of sortition, to randomly select citizen-representatives from the general public.
Democracy In Practice, an international organization dedicated to democratic innovation, experimentation and capacity-building, has implemented sortition in schools in Bolivia, replacing student government elections with lotteries.[23]
Danish Consensus conferences give ordinary citizens a chance to make their voices heard in debates on public policy. The selection of citizens is not perfectly random, but still aims to be representative.
The South Australian Constitutional Convention was a deliberative opinion poll created to consider changes to the state constitution.
Private organizations can also use sortition. For example, the Samaritan Ministries health plan sometimes uses a panel of 13 randomly selected members to resolve disputes, which sometimes leads to policy changes.[24]
The Amish use sortition applied to a slate of nominees when they select their community leaders. In their process, formal members of the community each register a single private nomination, and candidates with a minimum threshold of nominations then stand for the random selection that follows.[25]
Citizens’ Initiative Review at Healthy Democracy uses a sortition based panel of citizen voters to review and comment on ballot initiative measures in the United States. The selection process utilizes random and stratified sampling techniques to create a representative 24-person panel which deliberates in order to evaluate the measure in question.[26]
The environmental group Extinction Rebellion has as one of its goals the introduction of a Citizens’ assembly that is given legislative power to make decisions about climate and ecological justice.[1]
Following the 1978 Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election, due to disagreements amongst the parties of the governing coalition, the Chief Minister’s position was chosen by drawing lots.[27]

“blue sky thinking”

UPDATE

Some stats

population ~ 4.152.753 accounts

active users ~ 1.192.023people

servers > 6.828 instances

Let’s be optimistic and say half the instances signed up that would be over 3000 instances stakeholders and thus 3000 user stakeholders for a total of 6000 and a number from affiliate groups. This number is likely too much, so we can put a limit to 100 chosen by lottery from the stakeholders instances, this is then matched by 100 from the user stakeholders for 200 stakeholders + 5-10 affiliates it’s up to the admin group to choice the right number to build a working community, if you don’t have enough good workers open the pool up if the is to much dicushern close the pool down, try different approaches.

UPDATE

Looking at this in conversation it becomes clear it is a 3 way split of stakolder groups: instances/users/builders&supporters with the last group in big groups could be the size of the others so just to higlight they would be treted in exactly the same way if they are over the number of the body then they would be chosen by lottery just like the others.

External discuern

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/organizing-for-socialhub-community-empowerment/1529

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/what-would-a-fediverse-governance-body-look-like/1497/2

UPDATE

https://gnu.tools

Now that is serendipity timeing.

This looks like a tech/process based attempt at grassroots governance. Must say straight out, in my expirence, I have seen many process lead models like this, and they have NEVER worked.

Though it is always a good thing to try iteration. And good to contrast this to the humane/serendipity based aproch that we have been working on at the #omn

I like it.

Doesn’t OMN need to fit into some economic relationships?

The big #fedivers is run in the voluntarist economic model of patron and donations to cover basic costs. The technical federation allows this to happen at a humane scale. This was how #indymedia was run for 10 years – not without stresses that we do need to mediate. at the #OMN we have seed funding for 3-4 years and looking for sustainability here.

We are building “grassroots” at #OMN the is a role for #mainstreaming journalism and media. Projects like @novaramedia etc. they can be funded in different ways. Diversity is always a good thing, its were real humane power lays.