RFC re Procedural Approach

Re-reading notes on some works that deal with volunteer collaboration on real work. Linux is a great example of a complex yet efficient software suite that was rapidly built, largely by volunteers working in a distributed fashion without central direction (but with central coordination). Two useful works provided me some thoughts. Both had a similar message that I'm going to blend into a proposed methodology I ask you to provide comments on.

One was Weber, Success of Open Source, (Harvard, 2004), which attempted to identify the elements that allowed the Linux phenomenon to succeed. The other was Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar (First Monday 1998, Issue 3), which described his use of the Linux method to develop a piece of software. I recommend both to anyone involved with complex emergent systems.

Both recognized the value of "shifting power to the edge" by decentralizing control over a project, allowing participants to experiment and enable them to frequently compare findings and develop small, useful pieces of solutions that can work with other pieces to make one or more whole solutions. So, I quickly sketched the following as a more refined protocol for how the Society can choose its topics and come up with some material of immediate use to some or all of us.

1) Select practical problems or obstacles that interfere with near-term needs. These contrast with theoretical problems that may never become real priorities.

2) Look for existing solutions that can be adapted or strung together before inventing or demanding new ones.

3) Break the practical problems and existing solutions down into small chunks (subroutines?) that can stand alone but can also be snapped together (modular solutions). As opposed to complex global solutions attempting sweeping effects.

4) Allow Society volunteers to nominate themselves to undertake the research and thought experiments that find and test those solutions because they have a direct desire to overcome those obstacles.

5) Openly post drafts and partial progress early and often, requesting comments and feedback from all and sundry.

6) Reserve judgment even while pointing out negatives about findings, listen thoughtfully to others' views with the assumption that they are sincere and worthwhile.

7) Revise, redraft, return to an earlier step as appropriate and repeat as necessary.

RFC:
What do you think of this approach?
How might it be improved, or should we follow this path until another shows itself more promising?

Well one significant distinction I see between the open-source issue and other sorts of conflicts is that an open source type system has one underlying goal-promotion of the system.

If we recognize the importance of a overriding goal, then dispute resolution is easy, because both sides of an issue accept some need to compromise. Dispute resolution processes like arbitration or mediation are effective because people invoved with the project will at somepoint subvert short term personal needs for long term success.

This all changes however when the underlying goals are not the same. Litigation is a zero sum game, somone wins, and someone loses. The winner obtains the authority to use the state's resources to enforce the decision of the court. This is popular because it is final and enforceable.

A binding arbitration clause is successful because the parties agree to be bound by the descisions of the arbitrator, and can rely on the state to enforce those decisions.

On the other hand mediation and non binding arbitration rarely work, because if parties don't like the result, they simply proceed to litigation. Even in cases where it does work, the determining factor is not really the merits of the case, but rather the potential cost of litigation and the potential for success in that forum. Ultimately even mediated disputes fall under the shadow of the potential of an enforceable judement from the state.

The state's power to enforce the rulings of its courts is part of the rule of law. In SL we lack any mechanic for enforcing the decision of any arbitrator, so ther eis no need for compromise, or for an unsusccessful party to abide by the determination of a neutral.
this is why I say that all these discussions about possible avenues of dispute resolution are putting the cart before the horse. We need a way to ensure compliance on the part of paties who are less than happy with the overall result.

Jake, if I understand your post, its that you'd prioritize our tasks in the following order:
1) shaping things so that agreements and norms could be enforced and
2) working out effective methods of dispute resolution.

I don't see any reason the process we're contemplating would not work for either of those tasks, or the others suggested by members and listed in another thread in this forum, which now include (not in priority order):
* How to best moderate threads in a forum?
* How to raise capital needed to realize a new business or land development through sale of minority ownership stakes without giving up all control?
* How to provide for financial accounting and audits of accounts for those capital ventures?
* How to manage community land use in a sim without owning it all?
* How to make agreements enforceable in world?
* How to create or recognize in-world institutions that represent the rule of law and can act with authority?
* How to provide effective means of dispute resolution?

Good. Thanks, Jake.

Other comments on the process to address these various goals?