[EM] Rob Lanphier's hierarchical scheme

[Rob Lanphier]

Hi Abd ul-Rahman,

I realize I wasn't being fair to you on the applicability of Delegable
Proxy (DP).

I'll be referring to my system as "PH", for "proportional hierarchy".

More inline:

On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 23:23 -0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> But, it hit me, what if, instead of a fixed structure with meetings 
> of size N, there were a chaotic structure, a fractal, with meetings 
> organized around a chosen representative. In other words, instead of 
> starting with meetings and electing representatives, start with 
> representatives and let those who choose the rep constitute meetings. 
> Where a rep is chosen by too many people to hold a coherent meeting, 
> the rep could choose members of his constituency to form a high-level 
> meeting, and suggest that those who would like to continue to 
> function as his constituency, but indirectly, choose one of these 
> elevated members.
> 
> Thus the proxy network, with manageable meeting size, is built 
> simultaneously from the bottom and the top. The individual members 
> always retain full choice, but that choice is made in communication 
> with the proxies. Thus our standard suggested DP tool: a proxy list, 
> which is simply a list of members who have named a proxy, the name of 
> the proxy, and the *accceptance* of the proxy. In the systems we 
> envision, the acceptance of the proxy is an important element; 
> acceptance is an agreement to communicate directly.

Ok...this is the part that I hadn't previously understood about DP.  I'd
like to understand the mechanics of this better.  Specifically, how does
a popular leader subdivide their constituency?

> What I see as a serious shortcoming of Mr. Lanphier's proposal is 
> that far too many members must put in far too much effort. DP 
> distributes the effort. When it is implemented in the Free 
> Association context, we have assumed that all members retain the 
> right of direct vote, when polls are taken, but -- and this is 
> crucial -- not all members necessarily have the right to address a 
> high-level meeting.

PH from doesn't really talk about the right to vote in polls and other
measures. PH is purely for organizing the discussion itself, making it
so that everything gets read by someone (or is at least far more likely
to be read by someone), without everything needing to be read by
everyone.

Since I don't understand DP well enough to know how meeting size is
arrived at, I'm assuming that's entirely up to the leader.  The problem
I have with leaving it entirely up to the leader is that, as a
constituent, I may have a different opinion about what constitutes a
good group size than the leader does.  The leader may overestimate how
many people he can deal with at a time, whereas a constituent has a fair
expectation not to get lost in the crowd.

> When I was developing the concepts, the internet was not a factor. 
> However, it all gets easier with the internet; a "meeting" can easily 
> be, quite simply, a mailing list. Generally, I'd expect, higher-level 
> meetings would be open, and especially the top-level meeting of an 
> organization would be open, that is, anyone could join, but upon 
> joining, subscribers would be on moderation, and it might even be 
> that attempts of such a subscriber to send a message to the list 
> would result in a response informing the member that such submissions 
> are not accepted, that only qualified members of the list may post, 
> but that any qualified member may receive a submission and agree to 
> post it. "Qualified member" might mean someone holding a certain 
> number of proxies, direct or indirect, or otherwise admitted by vote.

This is the problem I'm trying to solve.  I'm trying to create a system
where people get the most merit based way of moving from "unknown" to
"qualified".  What I find with Daily Kos is that you can spend a lot of
time writing, and not rise above the noise, without being sure if its a
quality thing, or just luck, or headline writing skill, or what.

I also want messages to go to more than just a single "qualified
member", because this isn't about setting up absolute gatekeepers.
There needs to be oversight on the gatekeeper operation...so, in
addition to the leader seeing and approving, the group would get a shot
at it.


> And note that any member could vote. Whatever voting rights members 
> have are absolute throughout the structure. So the restrictions on 
> posting are those which have been accepted by, at least, a majority 
> of members, and which continue to enjoy majority support.
> 
> And those who don't like this restriction, for example, are quite 
> welcome to form their own list. Because of the DP structure, if there 
> are enough such members, they can send their own proxy or proxies to 
> the top-level list.
> 
> It's noise filtering, the very concern that led Lanphier to consider 
> the system he described here.
> 
> Lanphier does propose an assignment of people to meetings. Essential 
> to good communication is rapport. Skilled people can get beyond that, 
> but such skill is rare. It is an essential skill to function at a 
> high level, but expecting this skill at base-level meetings is 
> unrealistic. Thus Lanphier's system, if I've understood it, is 
> vulnerable to premature filtering out of minority opinion. DP allows 
> minorities -- of any kind -- to aggregate representation to a level 
> commensurate with their numbers, bringing such representation to a 
> level where the participants are more capable of integrating 
> viewpoints to find consensus.

I believe my system also respects minority opinion.  By being a
proportional system at all levels, one would be able to vote oneself
into a small group of likeminded people.  That group would filter into a
larger group of somewhat likeminded people, and that's where the
deliberative synthesis would occur.

Rob