A. I joined here only recently to experiment with the Fediverse, and that’s my first impression too. The two hottest kinds of topic I found were meta discussions such as “Twitter users will come here now”, and “the system is fucking with us using vaccines”.
Q. we build at Alt but will people come, some will. Moving away from the #dotcons it’s a tiny step we need to do more, MUCH more #OMN
A. people use the mainstream media because there they can find the information they want, their friends, and have a pleasant experience with highly usable tools. Only a very small group of people would use a privacy-oriented social media with complexities such as a federated network just because “fuck the system”. Even a nerd with the obsession for cybersecurity and privacy like me has an hard time finding interesting stuff here. And, believe me, I’m trying.
Q. this is an excellent question to ansear.
There are two points:
Firstly, we had exalent outreach alt media around for 20 years, #indymediaback is an example project that we need coders to help reboot.
Secondly, to think that we/you have any chance of grassroots progressive social change challenge without working alt media is a fatal fantasy. We can clearly see this in the mess of the last ten years.
We have the codeing tools #activitypub, and we have the historical social models that we know used to work, but had scaling issues.
The #OMN plan is simple, bring the new working technical scaling to the old working social models/process #4opens
As you say the fedivers made up of copies of #dotcons is too small a step.. We have to take the next step if we have any seruse ideas about change/challenge of the current #mainstreaming#deathcult
We have to change, challenge our social ideas and social process in what is left of the #openweb
This is less fundermentalist than it sounds as open-source (free softer) development already works mostly #4opens so the change being pushed by the #OMN is #nothingnew
This should be easy, but #BLOCKING has obviously to be overcome, dig, plant, grow. Compost the #techshit, repeat. One good first step is to be honest about our own funding.
A. being “alternative” is not a strong selling point because you define yourself relatively to something else instead of having your own identity. This dooms you to be always in the shadow of “the mainstream” as a sort of second choice.
Q. Being alternative USED to have a strong identity as did #openweb and yes you are right they DO NOT have this any more, this is a problem we should change challenge not except as “common sense”.
Think before replying as this conversation is more about agreeing then division, focus is good.
#mainstreaming is obviously a #deathcult we do need to keep saying this. There are well document alt’s that I push with every use of the hashtags #OGB#OMN#4opens etc. The problem we way too often face is people wanking liberal “common sense” in the era of the #deathcult so need to make this point forcefully.For our liberals (of every type) this comes across as toxic positively if they can see the positive side at all. When they don’t I call this #BLOCKING and often get blocked for doing so.
Compost and shit comes to mind, shit is good compost, so this is NOT actually a negative statement, it’s part of the story, in radical grassroots direct action you need to go through trying meany people to build a affinity group that makes a difference. http://hamishcampbell.com/2022/09/19/
People who PUSH “solutions” while they are obviously bowed down eyes on the ground to the #deathcult are pushing problems, not solutions. This is not an obvious statement to our “liberals” thus they way to often PUSH “solutions” over real working alternatives. #BLOCKING and adding to the social mess and #techshit we need to compost.
No matter how “nice” they are as individuals, their, perhaps well intended, work is a problem adding to the mess. I should not need to talk about this, but lets as few people I know understand these obverse points:
* Liberals talk about individuals, they talk about personal actions and personal responsibility. This is how you tell you are talking to a liberal.
* socialists, anarchists and leftists talk about social groups, community actions, social change and challenge. This is how you tell you are talking to a radical progressive.
So try judging people you are talking about to get a better idea who is #BLOCKING and who has the possibility of doing anything useful.
Hey, changemakers! Are you tired of shouting into the void on social media? Frustrated with the endless noise and the lack of impact? It’s time to harness the power of #hashtags to fuel a movement that can actually make a difference. And guess what? The #openweb is our playground for this revolution!
Check out The Hashtag Story https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=the+hashtag+story it’s more than just a guide; it’s a blueprint for building something big, something real. If you’re passionate about activism and ready to step up, this is your chance. This isn’t going to be an easy or comfortable path, but hey, who ever said change was easy?
The #OMN (Open Media Network) path is more than a simple call to action. Core to this is that the hashtags story can be more than just noise; it can be seeds for a movement, a way to connect, organize, and grow. But this only works if we make the commitment to turn those hashtags into something more than just digital graffiti. We need to take that extra step, turn talk into action, and make the #openweb a place for real, meaningful activism.
The #hashtags cover technology and society from a progressive view and are very simple, on a surface level, but full of complex conversations when you lift the lid and talk in the context they are planted in.
#BLOCKING = refusing to look/averting eyes/eyes closed
The stroy is complex and interlocking, telling us a wide story and world-view, to show a path out of our current mess.
#deathcult is relevant because of #XR forcing us to look the truth of ecological and social decay in the eye, good to ground this in real historical experiences, think of the Irish Potato and Bengal famine.
#Fashionista is about consumer capitalism, looked at as social illness.
#openweb is about building code for anachronism rather than capitalism
#dotcons are feeding social illness, we cannot keep building this sickness, the step away metaphor is a positive path away from this.
#closedweb is a form of technological slavery, we often choose.
#4opens is a tool that can be used to guide us on to the better humane path and, it gives us the power to JUDGE and thus decide, it is POWER.
#geekproblem is a group of people lost in darkness, blinded to humane light, they inbreed monsters in code #techcurn#techshit
The #geekproblem hashtag is not simply negative, it’s taking obvious “problem” out of “geek”.
The problem is obvious look at #failbook and Google both “geek” projects of domination/control, and yes you are right it’s geek culture shaped by capital in both cases.
What does #openweb geek culture look like? Looking back at early #couchsurfing and #indymedia you have healthy non “problem” examples. Look at both projects late in their decline, we have strong examples of the “problem”.
#techcurn the world is full of me to projects, everyone has the same ideas, few if anyone links.
#nothingnew is a question, do we need this codeing project.
#techshit is when people do not ask this question and build it anyway agen and agen
#encryptionists are in the end way too often about artificial scarcity (web03), this is not actually needed. To be clear this is a minority need for this technology, but as a limited use case not as a dominant way of thinking, codeing. #encryptionists is about the feeling of total control that encryption gives the #geekproblem this is key because all good progressive society are based on trust, which is about giving up this desire. The problem in geek is the problem of socialization… a known geek issue 🙂 in itself is fine, am not judging. BUT this is embedded in code that shapes society, it becomes a “problem”. Good to think a bit more on this one. With power comes responsibility.
This list only touches on the meanings and subjects. Next question, what is the story and world-view that these #hashtags embody?
The #4opens have many useful roles, but one that urgently needs highlighting is how they help protect grassroots tech projects from being pushed aside by the parasite class of #NGO and #fashernista projects that grow around them.
Over the last 20 years, in my direct experience, this pattern repeats again and again. Grassroots communities do the difficult early work of building trust, creating culture, seeding solving practical problems and growing real commons. Then, once this groundwork becomes valuable, layers of institutional actors arrive:
NGOs looking for funding flows,
consultants looking for careers,
academics looking for prestige,
and #fashernistas looking for visibility and branding opportunities.
The original social process gets buried under management culture, professionalisation, controlled messaging, and performative governance. The result is stagnation, fragmentation, and the slow death of the native project culture that created value in the first place. This is why open process matters so much, the #4opens make this #techshit visible:
who is making decisions,
who controls resources,
who is blocking change,
who is extracting value,
and who is actually doing the work.
When process is visible, unhealthy behaviour can be challenged early and composted before it hardens into institutional power. Without transparency, these patterns stay hidden behind branding, polite language, and bureaucratic process. So yes, please use the #4opens in all grassroots tech projects, not just as technical principles, but as practical social tools for defending commons from enclosure.
Because if we do not make power visible, power will always hide itself.
Anyone interested in doing a sexy site for the #4opens think people need “official” look and feel to make use of this powerful tool to fight the #techshit#techcurn and help to reboot the #openweb
Q. I think we need a 5th open: #openAccess. If you have the #4opens, but the project is jailed in the #walledGarden of #gitlab.com (which blocks some people from participation), the 4 opens are hindered by reduced/suppressed participation. E.g. some people cannot (or will not) file bug reports. So, can we get #5opens?
A. The #4opens is only designed to deal with 95% of the #techshit the rest is open to our creativity. Am interested in a #4opens review of GitHub
What we are likely to find is that GitHub is still inside the world of open source development, this is both good and bad, good in the sense of Microsoft moving away from its closed source roots, bad in the sense that they are doing it in the attempt to co-opt and extinguish.
The #4opens are not a way of keeping them out, but they are a way of mediating and stopping the extinguish bit when used as a tool to aggressively block that move.
A. aha just noticed this was gitlab not GitHub, don’t know much about that, so a #4opens review would be good.
It would help to think about society rather than individuals – for diversity as a healthy path. As long as they have opendata and open “Industrial” standards, you can move your work in and out… Openprocess makes easier as the documentation can be created to help people do this.
The open licence keeps you in control of your work, while promoting social use
Am interested in how #openacess adds over the other #4opens as I think you end up with “open access” from the outcome of the first 4 can we think about this?
Was thinking about this when reading other tweets and the #4opens gives you open access already, so we don’t need a 5th open #KISS
Good to have a chance to think these things though, thanks for the question.
We need to call pointless things pointless in the era of #climatechaos when most people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult
If you feel fear at this idea, then your head is bowed, #fashernistas get off your knees and call pointless things out. Actively use the #4opens as a shovel, there are piles of #techshit that needs to be composted. In the era of #climatechaos most people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult
All thinking is critique, if you aren’t looking at faults, you are likely not looking at the thing at all. Don’t be afraid, use the #4opens take up gardening the compost to plant the seeds of hope in the era of #climatechaos
Lift your head and look, lift your shovel, dig and plant.
Q. A lot of evil stuff happens via the cyberweb, no doubt. But I would encourage anyone who still knows how it works not to give up on it. Instead, try to work around the BS and design systems which are resilient to adversaries. As conditions of life get harder and the oligarchy turns the screws we need channels of dissident communication, even if they are no longer mainstream ones. Even retro stuff may go under the radar.
A. This is a social tech problem, a #geekproblem and the solution is social tech that steps away from the #geekproblem we cant just keep doing the same #techshit it’s time for composting #indymediaback#OMN are example of this that are currently blocked.
Q. As far as I could understand from what you said, what would then be exactly the social related problem to solve ? Are you referring to the way spying agencies like the CIA that is dominating the hacktivist scene, are creating “trends” on how to be safe online, which have most of the time no true impact regarding the possibilities of such agencies to continue spying and having social control? So you mean it’s a matter of being good at creating counter propaganda to cancel
A. You are describing the problems, then adding a layer of self-destruction to the problem, that’s not helpful. The #openweb has been “destroyed” by some forces you name. But we have also played a role in destroying it ourselves in refection to the real problems you highlight. We have little power over the first and more power over the second. It’s hopeful to think about this #geekproblem
Q. The #openweb wasn’t destroyed exactly. If you look at the numbers of websites over time, the open web is still there, but what happened is that almost all of the attention got captured by a small number of enormous corporate sites. The corporate sites made themselves critical conduits for search and discovery of news and views, such that the notion of “web surfing” has become almost obsolete. Google search increasingly won’t show much of the open web, because it’s not within the targeted ads business model.
A. yes my point, the #openweb is under a thin veneer of corporate crap. The #fedivers is a tiny break out of this that seceded because it was “accidentally” anti #geekproblem we need to be hardcore anti #geekproblem is the is to be HOPE 🙂
Q. The success of the fediverse did have a very large element of luck to it. Before 2017 it was doing very badly, and I remember unsuccessfully trying to persuade people to try GNU Social instead of going on Facebook. Even people who hated Facebook were reluctant to try the fediverse. Also my interpretation is that ActivityPub was originally a corporate idea but that the corporates lost interest, leaving its development to a few remaining grassroots activists. If the corporates had stayed that ActivityPub would probably be something quite different.
A. Yep, gave me hope, though it’s failing now – we have to stop fucking up this grassroots tech. A start is #4opens talking about the #geekproblem and using these to start composting #techshit
Q. The fediverse isn’t failing as such, but is becoming an established technology and so is no longer shiny or something which a clueless tech journalist would want to breathlessly scribble about as a new phenomena. Like XMPP and other previous protocols it is getting into the “plateau of productivity” where it mostly “just works”. There are complaints about lack of spec development, and some of those are justified. But ActivityPub doesn’t need to do all the things, it only needs to do one job well – that of being a social network protocol.
A. yes, it’s not failing in its own terms. But it is not heading to success in the bigger picture of being a alt to the #dotcons I should know being involved for the last few years outreaching it to the #mainstreaming that understands it has a #closedweb problem. The #EU outreach is interesting in this and likely also going to fail in the wider mission. It’s hard to push #openweb in a era controlled by #stupidindividualism and capitalism/alt diesper.
Q. It depends on what the EU’s wider mission is, but I expect that it’s not really a grassroots type of mission anyway. Whatever the machinations or motives of the EU, we do need to maintain a viable space for people who actively don’t want to be stuck in the corporate hellscape. And we shouldn’t assume that the EU will continuously bankroll some projects.
A. At the #EU it’s a power politics fight between the need for #open in a organization that is all about #closed people know they need to change but are only brave to pretend to do this. Am interested if a little crack of #open might be enough to undermine the monolith. Problem is everyone is up for selling out #open to grab a bit of #closed so only weak #open PUSH is all we have, needs to be sharper and harder push. Think stake and vampire level of PUSH with a few blows of a mallet to drive the point home. #open has power over closed, just like light over darkness.
It’s encouraging that more people are questioning whether we really need another new tech project. The truth is that most new projects are unnecessary. They solve imaginary problems, reinvent existing tools, or add to the growing pile of #techshit.
Before building anything, do a #4opens review. Ask simple questions: Is it open? Does it strengthen the commons? Does it distribute power? Does it solve a real social problem? Then publish that review. Let’s build a culture where communities evaluate technology together instead of chasing novelty. We need to do better.
The last decade of #techchurn has buried us under mountains of abandoned apps, duplicated projects and half-finished platforms. This isn’t just a technical problem; it’s a social one. Years of #mainstreaming have stripped away social purpose, while endless reinvention has consumed the time and energy that could have gone into maintaining and improving what already worked.
Some of this mess needs to be composted, not everything should be saved. The useful ideas, working code and lived experience should be recovered and reused. The rest can decompose into fertile ground for building something more humane.
From a grassroots perspective, one of our biggest problems is that many of the alternatives we once had have been hollowed out. Community media, social centres, cooperative technology and radical organising didn’t disappear because they failed completely. Many were absorbed, professionalised or defunded by the #NGO world, turned into projects for #fashernistas, or simply worn down by forty years of #deathcult thinking disguised as “common sense”.
That history matters. Many people wonder why motivation feels so low today. Part of the answer is that previous generations experienced real alternatives. Imperfect, often messy, but real. Anarchist projects, ecological movements, cooperative media, community technology and socialist experiments created spaces where people could participate rather than simply consume.
Most of those spaces have been dismantled, enclosed or forgotten. So let’s stop pretending we have to invent everything from scratch. Let’s recover what worked. Let’s learn from what failed. Let’s reboot the best of those traditions using federated, #4opens infrastructure like the #Fediverse and #OMN. Not as an exercise in nostalgia, but as the foundation for new experiments rooted in today’s reality.
Innovation isn’t about endless novelty, it’s about carrying forward what has lasting value. That’s the path beyond #techchurn.
Worth a read to see the issue of feeding off the state and the VC poison that shapes the #fashernista ploughing over grassroots by the #deathcult These people are adding to the #techshit and shifting the focus to pointlessness, I have seen no good outcomes from their work.
But they were “our” people at one time, our old friends in activism took the heathy internal stresses that were braking projects like #indymedia to feed a #fashernista vampire class, to built careers feeding on and draining grassroots corpus for 20 years.
It’s not a good look, but people like these are the gatekeepers you talk to when you talk to “power” #indymediaback
The current open-source/free software world is based on medieval political ideas of aristocracy and monarch, this is OBVIOUSLY useless in the modern world.
If you look at contemporary programming, I don’t think we have properly understood the social damage that our coding culture has already done, and is still doing. We have built enormous parts of modern life out of software, while pretending that software is somehow separate from society. It isn’t, code structures how we communicate, what we can see, who can participate, what gets remembered, what gets deleted, who gets heard and who gets ignored. And much of contemporary programming culture has a deeply contradictory relationship with this power.
In theory, the culture talks like anarchism: decentralisation, freedom, hacking, autonomy, permissionless innovation, open protocols. In practice, the resulting infrastructure feels closer to an authoritarian bureaucracy: rigid hierarchies, centralised control, surveillance, locked-down permissions, opaque decision-making and an almost obsessive belief that more control and more security will produce a safer society. This is part of the #geekproblem.
Closed systems hide power – in a #closed system, the monsters can operate without being easily seen. They can plot, manipulate, divide and control because the surrounding community cannot properly see what is happening. There is no shared social process for checking the claims being made or comparing them against what everyone else can see.
You cannot easily create social “truth” inside a closed system, you can have an official truth, corporate truth, an algorithmically manufactured truth. You can have whatever the people controlling the system want you to believe. But social truth is different, it emerges from people being able to see, question, compare, remember and challenge what is happening, that is one of the powerful things about #open. With genuinely open systems, the monster becomes more obvious. It becomes easier to see the relationships, the decisions, the contradictions and the consequences.
It becomes easier for other people to say – hang on, that’s not what happened – open systems don’t magically prevent abuse, they don’t make people good, but they make some forms of abuse harder to hide. Closed breeds monsters. Open pushes them out of the shadows where they can be seen.
The security paradox – this is where programming culture gets particularly strange. The demand for control and security is to often presented as neutral engineering. We are told that systems need permissions, authentication, central administration, surveillance and increasingly complex layers of security because the world is dangerous.
Of course some security is necessary, but when security becomes the organising principle of the whole system, something changes, the technology begins to reproduce the social assumptions of its creators. People become permissions, communities become accounts, relationships become access-control lists, trust becomes authentication and thus social problems become technical problems. Uncertainty becomes something that must be eliminated rather than something that society needs to learn to live with – this produces systems that are technically impressive but socially impoverished.
The fantasy of perfect control is a deeper problem here. We keep trying to build technology that removes mess, but human society is messy. People disagree, misunderstand each other, change their minds. Communities develop traditions as different groups have different needs. Sometimes things fail or somebody has a better idea, that isn’t necessarily a bug, it is social life. The #geekproblem treats this mess as something that technology should solve. The result, an endless attempt to build cleaner abstractions over increasingly complicated social realities. But the cleaner the technical abstraction becomes, the more human reality gets pushed outside the closeing system.
Then the system becomes brittle, and when it breaks, everyone is surprised. Code should be allowed to be messy – this doesn’t mean writing bad code. It means recognising that good social technology cannot be based on the fantasy of perfect control. We need systems that accommodate disagreement, forks, experiments, mistakes, local variation, negotiation and repair. In that sense, code should be a little bit messy, because society is messy. The goal isn’t to eliminate the mess, it is to create structures that help us live with it. That is different from the programming culture of trying to close every possible hole, define every possible behaviour and control every possible interaction.
#OPEN is a direction, not an endpoint – there is also a danger in treating #open as another purity project. Yes, the #openweb isn’t automatically good as open systems can contain abuse, misinformation, exclusion and power games. The #openweb itself contains plenty of contradictions. The #dotcons have their own versions of “openness”, often while retaining enormous concentrations of corporate power. So this isn’t a simple story of good open people versus bad closed people, more a balancing process.
#OPEN is a way to step away from #CLOSED – it creates space for transparency, plurality, experimentation and social accountability, gives communities more opportunities to see what is happening and to build alternatives. And that matters because we are currently living inside an enormous pile of inherited closed #techshit – closed platforms, closed data, closed algorithms, closed governance, closed infrastructures and assumptions about what technology is supposed to do. As a first step we need to compost a lot of this closed crap.
The mistake, we make to often today, is that we believe that we can build the perfect open system and finally end the struggle, we can’t, and we shouldn’t. There is no final technical architecture for society. There is no perfect governance model, no moment when we finally solve disagreement, power or human contradiction. Anyone promising that is either selling something, hiding something, or has fallen deeply into the #geekproblem.
The point is not to end the mess, it is to keep the mess visible, social and negotiable. We need technology that leaves room for people to challenge each other, organise, experiment, repair and move in different directions. That is why the #OMN work matters – to build practical #openweb infrastructure where media, metadata, moderation, governance and community relationships can remain visible, shared and contestable.
To make this happen we need #4opens starting points, #OGB experiments with governance, #MakingHistory to keep collective memory alive and #IndymediaBack to remember what grassroots media learned before the current wave of #dotcons.
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:
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.
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’scitizens’ 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]
DanishConsensus 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.
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]
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.
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
