Meritocracy
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Bryce L Nordgren
Oct 8, 2008, 10:29:44 PM10/8/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
Hello. I stumbled across NI4D recently and it appealed to me. About a year ago I tried to design a system to accomplish much the same thing, of course oblivious to the fact that you all existed. I basically just got to the point where it was "mostly" thought through. But the project is still on the web if you'd care to look at it. The front page does a pretty good job of explaining my reasons for being here.
Anyway. Meritocracy. "The power of those who do". It's the scalable social structure employed by the Apache Software Foundation to tease out consensus and encourage cooperation among their global volunteer workforce. My little project was an exercise in trying to adapt this structure to government. May be interesting to you. May not. You won't hurt my feelings if you think its dumb. :) But I did write a "Declaration" just for grins. It needed something grand. :)
America 2.0 website: http://www.openplans.org/projects/usa2/project-home
ASF Spiel on Meritocracy: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
Go read the declaration anyway. It'll make me feel better that I spent that time writing it. :)
Enjoy.
Anyway. Meritocracy. "The power of those who do". It's the scalable social structure employed by the Apache Software Foundation to tease out consensus and encourage cooperation among their global volunteer workforce. My little project was an exercise in trying to adapt this structure to government. May be interesting to you. May not. You won't hurt my feelings if you think its dumb. :) But I did write a "Declaration" just for grins. It needed something grand. :)
America 2.0 website: http://www.openplans.org/projects/usa2/project-home
ASF Spiel on Meritocracy: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
Go read the declaration anyway. It'll make me feel better that I spent that time writing it. :)
Enjoy.
Joshua N Pritikin
Oct 8, 2008, 11:02:28 PM10/8/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:29:44PM -0600, Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
> America 2.0 website: http://www.openplans.org/projects/usa2/project-home
> America 2.0 website: http://www.openplans.org/projects/usa2/project-home
Neat.
Does NI4D fully meet your requirements?
Bryce L Nordgren
Oct 9, 2008, 12:05:05 AM10/9/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
Well I isolated the concept of a "Mandate" so I (and others like me) wouldn't have to be bothered writing something like a law. For the most part I don't care specifically what the law says, I only remember the gist of it anyway. My eyes glaze over and my parser stops working. I'm actually still trying to power through the NI4D initiative. (Even though I already voted for it. Probably not such a great habit to get into.)
But other than that it seems like a much more mature version of my idea.
You need a Declaration!
Bryce
But other than that it seems like a much more mature version of my idea.
You need a Declaration!
Bryce
Michael Grant
Oct 9, 2008, 2:24:52 AM10/9/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Bryce L Nordgren <bnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I isolated the concept of a "Mandate" so I (and others like me)
> wouldn't have to be bothered writing something like a law. For the most
> part I don't care specifically what the law says, I only remember the gist
> of it anyway. My eyes glaze over and my parser stops working. I'm actually
> still trying to power through the NI4D initiative. (Even though I already
> voted for it. Probably not such a great habit to get into.)
>
> But other than that it seems like a much more mature version of my idea.
>
> You need a Declaration!
>
> Bryce
> Well I isolated the concept of a "Mandate" so I (and others like me)
> wouldn't have to be bothered writing something like a law. For the most
> part I don't care specifically what the law says, I only remember the gist
> of it anyway. My eyes glaze over and my parser stops working. I'm actually
> still trying to power through the NI4D initiative. (Even though I already
> voted for it. Probably not such a great habit to get into.)
>
> But other than that it seems like a much more mature version of my idea.
>
> You need a Declaration!
>
> Bryce
How about this?
http://www.mikegravel.us/content/declaration-independence-2008
gs...@aol.com
Oct 9, 2008, 7:59:23 AM10/9/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
Bryce,
I don't mean any insult here, but as far as I understand the historical meaning of a meritocracy, I am highly opposed to it.
At our nation's founding, a group of the more conservative Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams) wanted to have a meritocracy instead of a republican democracy.
Their reasons were pretty simple. A wise ruler should rule over the people. They were opposed to a king serving by heredity. But those with the merit to lead, should, and should rule as kings. Others, such as Edmund Burke was very much in favor of this, be it a king, or some other kind of ruler, and this philosophy has very much been a staple of the modern conservative (not the neo-conservative) movement.
The ideas of Madison and Jefferson were far more revolutionary. Forget about kings all together. Forget about rulers. Allow the people to run their own show in an organized fashion.
In this day and age, so long as there is some kind of organization around it, a direct democracy is possible, be that in the government, or be that in a business, or an organization. As I understand what you're doing, it's closer to a direct democracy.
Alva Goldbook.
I don't mean any insult here, but as far as I understand the historical meaning of a meritocracy, I am highly opposed to it.
At our nation's founding, a group of the more conservative Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams) wanted to have a meritocracy instead of a republican democracy.
Their reasons were pretty simple. A wise ruler should rule over the people. They were opposed to a king serving by heredity. But those with the merit to lead, should, and should rule as kings. Others, such as Edmund Burke was very much in favor of this, be it a king, or some other kind of ruler, and this philosophy has very much been a staple of the modern conservative (not the neo-conservative) movement.
The ideas of Madison and Jefferson were far more revolutionary. Forget about kings all together. Forget about rulers. Allow the people to run their own show in an organized fashion.
In this day and age, so long as there is some kind of organization around it, a direct democracy is possible, be that in the government, or be that in a business, or an organization. As I understand what you're doing, it's closer to a direct democracy.
Alva Goldbook.
McCain or Obama? Stay updated on coverage of the Presidential race while you browse - Download Now!
Bryce L Nordgren
Oct 9, 2008, 10:34:50 AM10/9/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
No insult taken. That's just not my understanding of the Apache Software Foundation's implementation of Meritocracy. I wasn't even aware there was a historical definition, as I thought the ASF coined the term.
I couldn't advocate rule by the "wise". ASF Meritocracy is more of a rule by the willing. From the tone of your note, I think you'll like it. Roles are defined primarily by the level of commitment an individual is willing to demonstrate.
The thing I like about it is that it's a practical, working framework which is able to entrain volunteers with vastly different degrees of commitment and each person has responsibilities appropriate to their commitment level. Sounds pertinent.
I think some of their procedural/process solutions are worth a look too. Their incubator concept is designed to give potential projects the opportunity to accumulate a critical mass of support as they are fleshed out. These kinds of things are what I was trying to adapt to government. Seemed like a good starting point.
I'm going to set aside some time to watch that video that was posted to try and get a better handle on what NI4D is about--and how you're solving some of these issues. But realistically its going to be next week.
Now as far as the Declaration goes. It's well written, emotionally engaging and I'll go along with it to a point. But it seems to me that the evidence introduced to prove that our representative government is irretrievably broken really only demonstrates that government is exactly as good as the people we elect into it. I have an enormous amount of respect for a system of government designed before the age of flight, yet flexible and capable enough to ground every aircraft over most of our continent within hours if the situation warrants. I'm here mostly because America 1.27 has certain limitations which should be addressed. No one is going to convince me that the current system isn't working. Because it is working, we have the luxury of noticing the limitations and the freedom to address them. I'd like to see more of that in the Declaration, even if it seems less dramatic.
I guess let me say it this way: the Declaration is at points overeager and stretches the facts to support positions it wants to take. Perhaps the strongest example of this is mention of the failure of "leadership to reduce our dependency on foreign oil". While that may have been wise, it has not been a consistent election issue, and the American people were not exactly giving them a mandate to do so by buying SUVs and pickups for the past 30 years. To blame elected officers for failing to take the initiative to lead us in a direction we were demonstrating was not important to us is just plain scapegoating. To me it seems contrary to the philosophy of personal responsibility at the core of NI4D---for that matter the intention behind our current government. In my opinion, the Declaration must, above all, be true to that philosophy.
Not trying to stir the pot, these are just my impressions.
Bryce
I couldn't advocate rule by the "wise". ASF Meritocracy is more of a rule by the willing. From the tone of your note, I think you'll like it. Roles are defined primarily by the level of commitment an individual is willing to demonstrate.
The thing I like about it is that it's a practical, working framework which is able to entrain volunteers with vastly different degrees of commitment and each person has responsibilities appropriate to their commitment level. Sounds pertinent.
I think some of their procedural/process solutions are worth a look too. Their incubator concept is designed to give potential projects the opportunity to accumulate a critical mass of support as they are fleshed out. These kinds of things are what I was trying to adapt to government. Seemed like a good starting point.
I'm going to set aside some time to watch that video that was posted to try and get a better handle on what NI4D is about--and how you're solving some of these issues. But realistically its going to be next week.
Now as far as the Declaration goes. It's well written, emotionally engaging and I'll go along with it to a point. But it seems to me that the evidence introduced to prove that our representative government is irretrievably broken really only demonstrates that government is exactly as good as the people we elect into it. I have an enormous amount of respect for a system of government designed before the age of flight, yet flexible and capable enough to ground every aircraft over most of our continent within hours if the situation warrants. I'm here mostly because America 1.27 has certain limitations which should be addressed. No one is going to convince me that the current system isn't working. Because it is working, we have the luxury of noticing the limitations and the freedom to address them. I'd like to see more of that in the Declaration, even if it seems less dramatic.
I guess let me say it this way: the Declaration is at points overeager and stretches the facts to support positions it wants to take. Perhaps the strongest example of this is mention of the failure of "leadership to reduce our dependency on foreign oil". While that may have been wise, it has not been a consistent election issue, and the American people were not exactly giving them a mandate to do so by buying SUVs and pickups for the past 30 years. To blame elected officers for failing to take the initiative to lead us in a direction we were demonstrating was not important to us is just plain scapegoating. To me it seems contrary to the philosophy of personal responsibility at the core of NI4D---for that matter the intention behind our current government. In my opinion, the Declaration must, above all, be true to that philosophy.
Not trying to stir the pot, these are just my impressions.
Bryce
gs...@aol.com
Oct 9, 2008, 11:35:29 AM10/9/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
Bryce,
I certainly agree with you, at least conceptually, with a rule of the willing, particularly with what you're doing with ASF. I don't think this would work particularly well with government though, since government power can be used to an individual's own ends. Of course, I should note that I'm not all that familiar with what you're doing, so I may have this completely wrong. Although, I could see this working quite well on a local level. I've often toyed with the idea of replacing police officers with community volunteers in much of the same fashion.
Alva Goldbook.
I certainly agree with you, at least conceptually, with a rule of the willing, particularly with what you're doing with ASF. I don't think this would work particularly well with government though, since government power can be used to an individual's own ends. Of course, I should note that I'm not all that familiar with what you're doing, so I may have this completely wrong. Although, I could see this working quite well on a local level. I've often toyed with the idea of replacing police officers with community volunteers in much of the same fashion.
Alva Goldbook.
jfmxl
Oct 10, 2008, 7:32:55 AM10/10/08
to The National Initiative for Democracy
'As the group started to develop their own version of the software,
moving away from the NCSA version, more people were attracted and
started to help out, first by sending little patches, or suggestions,
or replying to email on the mail list, later by more important
contributions.
'When the group felt that the person had "earned" the merit to be part
of the development community, they granted direct access to the code
repository, thus increasing the group and increasing the ability of
the group to develop the program, and to maintain and develop it more
effectively.'
Check out
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht
Michael Allen is working on something he calls Votorola. He envisions
the electing of people to positions of responsibility happening in a
fashion similar to what you have laid out above.
I am more interested in Votorola as a prototype of a vehicle for
creating, perfecting, and enacting legislation... like the NI4d and
its descendants, for instance.
moving away from the NCSA version, more people were attracted and
started to help out, first by sending little patches, or suggestions,
or replying to email on the mail list, later by more important
contributions.
'When the group felt that the person had "earned" the merit to be part
of the development community, they granted direct access to the code
repository, thus increasing the group and increasing the ability of
the group to develop the program, and to maintain and develop it more
effectively.'
Check out
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht
Michael Allen is working on something he calls Votorola. He envisions
the electing of people to positions of responsibility happening in a
fashion similar to what you have laid out above.
I am more interested in Votorola as a prototype of a vehicle for
creating, perfecting, and enacting legislation... like the NI4d and
its descendants, for instance.
Michael Grant
Oct 10, 2008, 2:19:30 PM10/10/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
> Michael Allen is working on something he calls Votorola. He envisions
> the electing of people to positions of responsibility happening in a
> fashion similar to what you have laid out above.
> the electing of people to positions of responsibility happening in a
> fashion similar to what you have laid out above.
My middle name is Allen by bizarre coincidence!
Michael Allen Grant
jfmxl
Oct 10, 2008, 9:21:17 PM10/10/08
to The National Initiative for Democracy
I'm afraid I have misspelt Michael Allan's name above. I apologize.
There's a small google group on votorola as well.
http://groups.google.com/group/votorola
It's very, very interesting stuff.
There's a small google group on votorola as well.
http://groups.google.com/group/votorola
It's very, very interesting stuff.
Bryce L Nordgren
Oct 14, 2008, 8:40:57 PM10/14/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
Wow. This is a very cool little toy. You know what would be a really good addition? Some means of integrating the votes of the representative government for display alongside the votes of the people. It would also be cool to display how often the representative voted the way you would have. The same tool is valid both now and later.
Hmm. Project vote-smart seems to have a process down for injesting voting records of a number of different legislative bodies. Wonder if they'd be willing to host a national votorola server. And encourage people to extend trust edges...
B
Hmm. Project vote-smart seems to have a process down for injesting voting records of a number of different legislative bodies. Wonder if they'd be willing to host a national votorola server. And encourage people to extend trust edges...
B
jfmxl
Oct 14, 2008, 11:44:57 PM10/14/08
to The National Initiative for Democracy
My server is FreeBSD and java support is not robust on that platform
so I have been unable to experiment. The ASF loves java, right?
so I have been unable to experiment. The ASF loves java, right?
Bryce L Nordgren
Oct 15, 2008, 12:30:50 AM10/15/08
to ni4...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:44 PM, jfmxl <jf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My server is FreeBSD and java support is not robust on that platform
so I have been unable to experiment. The ASF loves java, right?
I think I'd better correct an impression I seem to have read into some previous messages. I'm not with the ASF. I just think that the way they go about their business seems like a good starting point for building consensus. :)
My PC has both Windows and Linux, both with Java, but I just get an IP via DHCP every time I boot; not such a great characteristic for a server. I have considerably more horsepower and bandwidth at work, but that's definately off the table.
In any case, sounds like the primary (only?) interface is email. Some development would have to occur prior to putting it on the web. And the trust edges should probably be built up from some scenario like the Web of Trust described here: http://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual/x547.html
It would be interesting to set up something like this to shadow the 2012 elections.
My PC has both Windows and Linux, both with Java, but I just get an IP via DHCP every time I boot; not such a great characteristic for a server. I have considerably more horsepower and bandwidth at work, but that's definately off the table.
In any case, sounds like the primary (only?) interface is email. Some development would have to occur prior to putting it on the web. And the trust edges should probably be built up from some scenario like the Web of Trust described here: http://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual/x547.html
It would be interesting to set up something like this to shadow the 2012 elections.
jfmxl
Oct 15, 2008, 4:09:51 AM10/15/08
to The National Initiative for Democracy
Michael Allan is more interested in elections that elect people, and I
am interested in that too, of course. But the matter at hand is
elections that elect legislation, and that seems to be slipping below
the horizon at votorola. It is scheduled to show up however.
The site is very stimulating from purely a theoretical basis however,
and well worth following just from that point of view. Also I am not a
fan of java myself.
Perhaps Michael's ideas can be re-implemented on less resource
intensive platform.
I think we will have to have some means of voting on proposed
legislation... but we will need to have legislation to propose first.
am interested in that too, of course. But the matter at hand is
elections that elect legislation, and that seems to be slipping below
the horizon at votorola. It is scheduled to show up however.
The site is very stimulating from purely a theoretical basis however,
and well worth following just from that point of view. Also I am not a
fan of java myself.
Perhaps Michael's ideas can be re-implemented on less resource
intensive platform.
I think we will have to have some means of voting on proposed
legislation... but we will need to have legislation to propose first.
jfmxl
Oct 16, 2008, 8:19:54 PM10/16/08
to The National Initiative for Democracy
<quote>
The Declaration you refer to is
Mike Gravel's Declaration of Independence of 2008
http://www.mikegravel.us/content/declaration-independence-2008
Which is a polemic. It is at points overeager and stretches the facts
to support positions it wants to take. Mike has elsewhere laid out the
NI4d in cold light.
But even in this document Mike hits the nail on the head in his
premise, if he has puffed up the facts, as the original Declaration
did too, in support of his premise :
"The malevolent corrupting power of money on the body politic has
caused repeated injuries to the public interest."
No one is running down the original constitution. It has served us
well indeed, and will serve us well again once the pernicious
influence of money is taken out of our government.
Can you argue that "our" representatives represent us? Or must you
admit that they represent those who fund their campaigns? The MSM no
longer publishes the amount of money applied to the two candidates in
the present presidential campaign. The last number I read on Obama was
that he'd taken $400 million in "campaign contributions"! That ought
to disqualify him right off the bat.
Mike's point is that the class that represents the people is so bought
up, as a class, that they are incapable of acting in the people's
interests vis a vis money in politics because it is contrary to their
interests as incumbents to do so.
Campaign finance is nowhere mentioned in our constitution. It is not a
constitutional fault in that sense. It is a constitutional oversight.
But who'd a thought in 1789... That's why we have the right to amend
our constitution. And as the declaration points out real sovereignty
lies in the people, not their creatures.
So it is the people who must right the government, who must make our
representatives represent us and not inhuman, corporate interest. And
the only way we can do that is by asserting our right and power to do
so. And while we are at it we must do so once and for all.
You're right of course that blaming bought-up politicians for seeing
to the needs of their true constituents, and they ain't us, is passing
the buck.
Yet Mike has stated on many occasions "the philosophy of personal
responsibility at the core of NI4D". Mike has said that we are like
adolescents, relying on our "parents" in the form of our elected
officials to act "like adults"; that this is misplaced, that the buck
stops with us, that we are or must become the "adults" ourselves and
lay down policy for our "children", our representatives.
And the way to do that is by taking the initiative and just doing it.
I guess let me say it this way: the Declaration is at points overeager
and
stretches the facts to support positions it wants to take. Perhaps
the
strongest example of this is mention of the failure of "leadership to
reduce our dependency on foreign oil". While that may have been
[un]wise, it has not been a consistent election issue, and the
and
stretches the facts to support positions it wants to take. Perhaps
the
strongest example of this is mention of the failure of "leadership to
reduce our dependency on foreign oil". While that may have been
American people were not exactly giving them a mandate to do so by
buying SUVs and pickups for the past 30 years. To blame elected
officers for failing to take the initiative to lead us in a direction
we were demonstrating was not important to us is just plain
scapegoating. To me it seems contrary to the philosophy of personal
responsibility at the core of NI4D---for that matter the intention
behind our current government. In my opinion, the Declaration must,
above all, be true to that philosophy.
</quote>
buying SUVs and pickups for the past 30 years. To blame elected
officers for failing to take the initiative to lead us in a direction
we were demonstrating was not important to us is just plain
scapegoating. To me it seems contrary to the philosophy of personal
responsibility at the core of NI4D---for that matter the intention
behind our current government. In my opinion, the Declaration must,
above all, be true to that philosophy.
The Declaration you refer to is
Mike Gravel's Declaration of Independence of 2008
http://www.mikegravel.us/content/declaration-independence-2008
Which is a polemic. It is at points overeager and stretches the facts
to support positions it wants to take. Mike has elsewhere laid out the
NI4d in cold light.
But even in this document Mike hits the nail on the head in his
premise, if he has puffed up the facts, as the original Declaration
did too, in support of his premise :
"The malevolent corrupting power of money on the body politic has
caused repeated injuries to the public interest."
No one is running down the original constitution. It has served us
well indeed, and will serve us well again once the pernicious
influence of money is taken out of our government.
Can you argue that "our" representatives represent us? Or must you
admit that they represent those who fund their campaigns? The MSM no
longer publishes the amount of money applied to the two candidates in
the present presidential campaign. The last number I read on Obama was
that he'd taken $400 million in "campaign contributions"! That ought
to disqualify him right off the bat.
Mike's point is that the class that represents the people is so bought
up, as a class, that they are incapable of acting in the people's
interests vis a vis money in politics because it is contrary to their
interests as incumbents to do so.
Campaign finance is nowhere mentioned in our constitution. It is not a
constitutional fault in that sense. It is a constitutional oversight.
But who'd a thought in 1789... That's why we have the right to amend
our constitution. And as the declaration points out real sovereignty
lies in the people, not their creatures.
So it is the people who must right the government, who must make our
representatives represent us and not inhuman, corporate interest. And
the only way we can do that is by asserting our right and power to do
so. And while we are at it we must do so once and for all.
You're right of course that blaming bought-up politicians for seeing
to the needs of their true constituents, and they ain't us, is passing
the buck.
Yet Mike has stated on many occasions "the philosophy of personal
responsibility at the core of NI4D". Mike has said that we are like
adolescents, relying on our "parents" in the form of our elected
officials to act "like adults"; that this is misplaced, that the buck
stops with us, that we are or must become the "adults" ourselves and
lay down policy for our "children", our representatives.
And the way to do that is by taking the initiative and just doing it.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages