[EM] proxy representation with "dissenting votes"

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:04 PM 2/27/2006, Simmons, Forest wrote:

>It does my heart good to see this kind of discussion.

It takes a good heart to be warmed by this....

> >Yes, that is the solution I came up with. A meeting determines what
> >is the optimum size, N, then the N proxies with the most votes are
> >full members. It would actually not be difficult to do.
>
>
>My response:
>
>It seems to me that each connected component of the DP network 
>should have a seat in the assembly, unless that makes the assembly too large.

Consider the context of my proposal. Every member of the network has 
a *vote* in the assembly, so every member participates in determining 
if there are to be any restrictions on full participation. Generally, 
those restrictions aren't necessary until the assembly actually gets 
too large, though even in small organizations, it can be found 
necessary to restrict an individual. This is simply the right of the 
assembly to protect itself. (in FAs, no member can ever be expelled, 
but a corollary is that nobody is forced to meet with someone 
personally, with whom they do not wish to meet, except and unless 
both parties are high-level proxies and they both desire to seek some 
kind of organizational unity, which I presume high-level proxies will 
generally value.

The only reason a loop (your "connected component") would not have 
*full* representation would be that the loop closed or terminated 
without having reached a sufficiently-trusted proxy. The continuation 
of that situation would be voluntary, unless the loop were so 
"deviant" from the large majority of members that they couldn't find 
rapport with any of them. Remember, if they can find anyone to trust 
outside their group, they have enlarged the loop. Outsiders may 
simply negotiate with each other to agree on a common proxy, bringing 
them over the threshold.

But it is not necessary to have full participation rights to 
participate. Participation really only involves finding a proxy with 
full rights willing to enter a motion or pass an idea on. Of course, 
if a proxy does that in a way that harms the group, that proxy might 
face censure. But if the idea has any merit, I'd think it would not 
be difficult to find a proxy who would think it worthy of 
consideration, if for no other reason than to bring the "deviant" 
group into the fold by giving its ideas consideration, to the point 
that these ideas would find proper inclusion in the consensus.

>In that eventuality one possibility is to require each of the 
>smaller components to attach itself to one of the N larger 
>components by delegation.

>But this solution bothers me because the "require" is a constraint 
>that violates the otherwise voluntary delegation principle.

It ought to bother you. Great minds think alike. :-) I think the 
value of fully voluntary delegation, aside from natural consequences, 
is so great that the harm from lack of full privileges is outweighed, 
by far. Essentially, if you can't find agreement outside your small 
group, you *deserve* to be somewhat isolated. But FA/DP organizations 
would present so many opportunities for connection, and so many of 
the fully-qualified proxies would want to be as inclusive as 
possible, that I doubt that serious isolation would take place.

Restriction of full participation is actually essential; however, 
suppose I'm wrong about that, that there is a way to allow everyone 
to participate fully with incurring the well-known harms from it. 
Meetings, remember, establish their own rules (that is actually part 
of Robert's Rules, as it should be); all it takes is one full member 
of the meeting to move that restrictions be lifted, and all those 
"excluded" members can vote on it.

I value consensus, but I do not want the seeking of it to become, as 
it often does in consensus organizations, minority rule where the 
status quo favors a minority. The majority retains the right of 
decision and the natural power that it has merely by being the 
majority. (If it is a true majority.)

>Another thing that bothers me is that even the largest of the 
>natural components of the DP network might be so small that that the 
>N=500 largest components together might fail to represent even one 
>percent of the population, total.

I think that as proxy level rises, the proxies will be better and 
better able to find good proxies for themselves. We won't really 
know, however, until we create such organizations.

But my opinion is that there is so much benefit from collecting 
proxies in single individuals on a large scale, in terms of 
efficiency and cost -- remember, I consider that the time that 
members put into an organization its "cost," and in an FA, it is 
almost the only cost, or at least the overhead, there will be project 
costs, paid directly to projects by the members who support the projects.

People will be motivated to seek those they trust, since it will 
relieve them of the burden of redundancy. There are *not* 500 
factions in any organization, and trust in a proxy does not have to 
be absolute.

>These two objections might not obtain in typical cases, but it would 
>be nice to have a method that finessed these potential problems, 
>because when there are problems at the extremes, manipulators have 
>incentive to press towards the extremes that favor them.

FA/DP organizations will be, I predict, practically invulnerable to 
manipulation, if they have a certain set of founding principles that 
are well-understood by the members. FA/DP organizations are free to 
become whatever they want, they could abandon the freedoms and 
restrictions that preserve them, but they won't if they understand 
why they are there, that is, if they understand the organizational 
hazards that the rules are designed to avoid.

The power of FA/DP is in its fractal structure; in particular, if the 
assignment of direct proxies takes place on a small scale, where, 
say, only 20 people directly choose a single individual as their 
proxy, corruption would be extremely difficult and ineffective. I've 
thought, sometimes, that this number should be limited, but, same 
principle as you stated above, it would be an infringement on the 
members, who must remain free to make what we think are mistakes.

I just know that *I'm* not going to choose a proxy who represents so 
many people that I cannot reliably communicate with him or her. And, 
on the reverse side, I would not want to *accept* more proxies than I 
could comfortably call in a few hours. That's *direct* proxies. There 
is no natural limit to the number of indirect proxies.

(And this is why delegable proxy is an inevitability. A single layer 
of proxies runs into the problem of scale, just at a bit higher level.)

We aren't going to truly understand the problems of delegable proxy 
until there are real organizations using it. Hence my project to 
start FA/DP organizations, or to encourage others to do so. Try it. 
You'll like it.

And I really want to encourage anyone who cares to join with me. 
BeyondPolitics.org, in its conception, is itself an FA/DP 
organization, I am merely a trustee at the moment, and I would never 
abuse that trust contrary to the FA principles. (I.e., suppose that a 
majority of members want to do something that I just cannot abide 
with. I might, as one possibility, turn the web site into a simple 
page referencing two new sites: one being controlled by me and 
whoever agreed with me, and the other being controlled directly by 
the original majority, however they wished, together with a consensus 
description of what happened (a consensus description can include 
unresolved controversy by stating multiple points of view). In other 
words, I would not use my position as trustee to bias the future of 
the organization in whatever direction I might happen to personally 
want. There are ways to ensure fairness and equity without controlling others.

FA/DP organizations can quickly and easily split, but they can just 
as quickly and easily merge. And there is usually much more power in 
merging, if ways can be found to cooperate.