Episodios

  • 6th Open Source Governance public session

    6th Open Source Governance public session
    Nov 18 2020
    The sixth public session of Open Source Governance held at W139 on 21 October 2017, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Intro music: Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod. licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)The following text unfolds the session by a timely order.W139 AmsterdamThis session was held at W139 in Amsterdam, as part of an exhibition “Ideology Meets Implementation”. The exhibition looked into ideologies on which systems are based, and how they contradict themselves when practiced in everyday life.W139 is itself a de-centralized organization with no director or curator, which is formed from a large group of artists, who run the space and the exhibitions together.First members did go through a round of introductions. Then the initiator explained how the project developed so far, and what the project seeks to do. Also he did a compact recap of the topics discussed during past sessions. Afterward, the current design of the blueprint was explained. 1. Decision-making Space based on Dewaniya:Here Cam Liu as a guest speaker during the session, explained his research and design project.Based on a traditional method from Kuwait, Dewaniya is a public or private space that has a proper seating arrangement with a middle seat for the leader or head and surrounding seats for the other members of discussion. The members seat around in a room with four walls, facing each other and drink Kahwa (traditional green tea). This small decision-making unit is categorized to four types:1.1. Diwaniya types:Private house: For discussion, exchange news, and express their political opinionsCourtyard: For more formal discussionsPublic space: Exchange news, and a place to connect all the private discussions together Conference room: A place to spread ideologiesCam’s main objective is to gather all the complexities coming from different individuals. He is interested in seeing how an open source decision-making can be influenced by spaces of decision-making.1.2. Bazaar:Cam proposed to add another unit in the existing network place; Bazaar. Bazaar is an interesting part of the society where all the people gather and create a diversity and complexity. As it is hard to communicate and negotiate on a large scale, most common government approach is representative selection, roughly simplified complexity and generalisation about those representatives. OSG is where not just representatives, but everyone will be involved in the process of decision-making.1.3. 3-Layer Device Design:Lower space for public – the people just passing by. For urban useMiddle space. A network of smaller spaces for discussing information. To present documents, information and recordingsUpper space for decision-making itself. Dewaniya1.4. How will it function?It will work by creating a framework for decision-making. The influence behind the main question is more important. Thus, we will work on discovering the influence and then working accordingly. Before voting, people will go through the 2nd layer of discussing information to gets an idea.1.5. Benefits:It is about the network, and its smaller subunits. It will help in decentralising the parliament/big discussion by making several individual discussions.Encourage face-to-face discussion resulting in a more fruitful discussion compared to the one that takes place behind the screens via keyboard.Referendums are unclear. This will allow the question to be broken down, which will make it more coherent. Thus, a better answer.2. BiblioHUB:Mika Rădescu presented the BiblioHUB project as the second guest speaker of the session.Mika first explained a project by Alexander Sverdlov, in which a group of architects initiated a project of public library in Russia, they carried out studies and selected a few of those spaces to expand into pilot projects. Realizing the importance, government then gave money to refurbish them into Dutch-like libraries.“The project began in 2012 with an idea formulated between the part-Dutch-part-Russian practice SVESMI, urban designer Paola Viganò, and a Muscovite bibliophile described as an ‘island of literary independence’ called Boris Kupriyanov (of Falanster). Sverdlov and Kupriyanov took the lead, assisted by a group of thirty-five multidisciplinary minds engaged in the production of a provocative research document which boldly called for the restoration of Moscow’s vast network of small-scale libraries. This field research was followed by the thesis of Giovanni Bellotti and Paolo Ruaro, under the supervision of Paola Viganò and Alexander Sverdlov, at the Università IUAV di Venezia. The foremost goal of this research as a whole was to explore what libraries were, are and should be in order to prove that a dose of fresh ambition could shock the system into rapid reform.” – Arch DailyBased on that knowledge, Mika was inspired to do a similar project in Bucharest. The project is called BiblioHUB, and it is a refurbishing project with initiating a ...
    Más Menos
    2 h y 30 m
  • 5th Open Source Governance public session

    5th Open Source Governance public session
    Nov 18 2020
    The fifth public session of Open Source Governance held at Showroom MAMA on 20 August 2017, in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Intro music: Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod. licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)The following text unfolds the session by a timely order. Recap:Sense of AccountabilityTrust of people and citizensPirate parties – Sweden and Iceland after the financial breakdown. Indian anti-corruption movement and Aam Admi (common man) Party referenceThe terminology and the Core GroupDiverse models of DemocracyBottom-up hierarchy (network) – Regional > National > GlobalCore Action Groups who have equal powerA minority-majority voting system that makes sure the majority does not dominate the minoritySmart Contract – Using the idea to secure OSG legislative processHow to pass a referendum so that people can vote without getting confused and how to break down the question to people to make them understandJury DutyCity Hall Meetings; even people who cannot be there in person can engage, plus people are more expressive and courageous behind the computerSortition and Lottery system for votingLobbying. Example: Gay rights movement lobbyTransparency of open sourceLegislation and Implementation linked together to make everyone do their job properly without the need of any enforcing lawReward system to encourage participationMahalleh – localization into the house, street, community (Mahalleh). Caring for the neighborhood and having a say in your neighbors’ matters.How big or small the scale of open source will be Why Open Source Government (OSG) came into being:Open source is when the information is there for everyone to access, examples are Blockchain and Wikipedia. The concept is to improve the 800-year old representative system of parliament, as it is now outdated and needs to be updated into a more direct democracy by everybody, not just confined to the representatives. OSG sessions took place at different places, discussing various disciplines, looking for members from diverse disciplines (sociology, law, eco, politics, etc.) as it is a vast project requiring immense knowledge.Short-term Goal:Prepare a proposal, blueprint or organizational chart for open source system/society. We can then apply it to a small institution, school, prison, refugee camp or some other place to see the outcomes. Identifying our Resources and Objectives:Initially, we need to have smaller more realistic goals instead of ambitious ones. The project shall be managed by a core group of people, the members, who have some project management skills. They will develop the blueprint, which will enlist; our resources, who we are and what are our goals and then later on all the information will be shared online. Some doubts and questions by the present members:It was suggested by one member that the idea of open source government is totally utopic. Open source itself originated in the virtual world, which contains layers that not everybody understands. Trying to solve everything virtually did not seem like a good idea. Questionably, what exactly are the issues that we are trying to solve? How to make sure everyone will participate and act responsibly? If we have an active group and an inactive group, then the decisions are again made by the active people who may again turn into the elite. The basic blueprint would clarify many such questions. Bitcoin, for example, was once a virtual currency, today more people are accepting it as a means of trade. But one member suggested that even if something gains enough popularity (like Bitcoin), people in power can easily shut it down by making it illegal. So how do we manage to make the transition in power happen.Following this discussion, two of the members debated weather members of a society should feel responsible for the others or not. One argued that we are a community and responsible in the social environment, while the other said if there is a public duty, there should be enforcement, therefore open public involvement is a myth. However, the group agreed that education might overcome that. Tools for OSG to be Applicable:Decision-making is imperative. Whether if it is a project or simply open source sessions, everyone should put forward their suggestions. By far, the sessions are not very clear with their objectives, therefore we would need,Clear definition of PoliticsDefine the project itself. For it to be operating, we must know what it is so that we have a direction. Members should note down the mission, outcome, goals, etc. The community of OSG should be distinct from the end-users. It is important to recognize who will be the members, and facilitate their collaboration for OSG to continue to flourish while focusing on community building aspects.Allow communicationFor every session, the members must do their homework to avoid time-waste for recapsThe group then took a break Value notions and common questions within the group:The minority should be ...
    Más Menos
    2 h y 47 m
  • 4th Open Source Governance public session

    4th Open Source Governance public session
    Nov 18 2020
    The fourth public session of Open Source Governance held at Showroom MAMA on 21 May 2017, in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Intro music: Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod. licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)The following text unfolds the session by a timely order. 1. Recap of the Previous Session:We briefly discussed the following key concepts from the previous sessions:Methods of direct legislation like jury duty or city hall debates Open Source LegislationMorality of Collective DecisionsGood VS BadBlockchain and BitcoinPirate partiesRegions, minorities, referendum, sortationCitizen reward systemAims and Objectives of Open Source Government (OSG) Apply for FundsWebsite for OSG 2. About Blockchain:Blockchain is a peer-to-peer system that shares information amongst users without the need for a central server. Every user has the same version of the database. And transactions need to be verified by a number of users in order to take place. Then the history of the transaction will be recorded on everyone’s database. The data from this system is hack-proof as every user has a copy of the database, making it the most secure system to date.2.1.  How these systems work:These systems do not store all your data but only the metadata, i.e. the encryptions of your data. Therefore, it is not an alternative for the data storage. For example you cannot store videos on blockchain, but you can encrypt the data of money transactions like bitcoin, and then store the metadata on the peer-to-peer database.2.2.  Ethereum – ft. Smart Contracts:Ethereum is an open source system of blockchain featuring Smart Contract, making transactions tremendously secure. If you own some bitcoins, everyone will know about it but nobody can take it away from you, as it is encrypted in the database with your name. You can put codes (conditions) into the blockchain server, and every time the deed takes place, the corresponding reaction will automatically occur. You’ve put a condition, for example, where you get $100 for 1000 visits, so at every 1000th visit, the system will add $100 to your account.    3. Open Source Government System:OSG, as the name suggests, would be open-source, where everybody will have access to the information but only verified users can make changes to it, like Wikipedia and Blockchain system. Taking ideas from the Blockchain system, we will make the voting system in OSG hack-proof. The voting system will take suggestions from people. For choosing representatives, we will use sortition aka the lottery system. We will also localize the processes taking place locally, instead of having to wait for the orders from the central government for every issue. 4. Parties:Because there is more chance for the individuals to engage, there will be a lot of parties. Having too many parties would make it difficult for the corrupted to start lobbying. We can have educational, health, animal rights and all such parties for their respective functions (like what we have now in Holland for example). These parties can have separate tasks to perform but work in harmony. We can also have temporary movements instead of a few major parties which stay there for a long time. In case citizens face any issues, the representatives will know about the ongoing situation and resolve them. 5. Selection Criteria for Representatives:Those who showed a certain amount of interest in OSG (preferably technicians) would be chosen for representation. 20 members specialized in their respective functions will represent the citizens. Those twenty members will then choose three members for the parliament, as higher officials, who will make final decisions for the citizens. One participant remarked, “This is intellectual lobbyism”.5.1.  Decision making Criteria:The citizens who are related to the subject can have a higher weightage in voting. For example in the construction of Mosque, Muslims, people living close to the location where it has to be built, shopkeepers next door, are all related to the subject and can get a higher say in voting. Everyone else can be involved with equal weightage in the decision making.5.2.  Using GPS for Voting:Using GPS for the benefit of OSG seems like a good idea as the citizens of age groups 18-25 barely use computers, they use mobiles for almost everything and we do not want them to be left out. Young people sometimes express that it’s ridiculous to go to the city hall and vote on a piece of paper. 6.      Citizen reward system:The same information from the last session was given to the present participants. Then some new points were made:6.1.  In relation to a bad example of citizen reward system, like the one from China where all the data goes into serving and empowering the central big brother, in a truly decentralized network of peers, the data and the participation can help everyone equally.6.2.  People should be able to choose to not to participate and engage in ...
    Más Menos
    2 h y 40 m
  • 3rd Open Source Governance public session

    3rd Open Source Governance public session
    Nov 18 2020
    The third public session of Open Source Governance held at Showroom MAMA on 12 March 2017, in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Intro music: Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod. licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)The following text unfolds the session by a timely order:Transparent Lobbyism:When we talk about Lobbyism and Pirate Parties, we mean the transparent form of lobbyism as currently what we are experiencing is a corrupt form of lobbyism where the Ministers, CEOs and all other well-off people have more say in politics.For instance, when examining ‘Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights’, the gay CEO of a company can bribe a politician and ask them to favor gay rights. On the other hand, if a second class gay citizen requests the same thing, the politician is more likely to listen to the CEO.  Lobbyism in Daylight:An example has been given that in the Netherlands there is an association called VOB, where you as a civilian can demand to learn about the meetings of the ministers and the timing of the meetings. For example you can see that the minister of finance had sixteen talks with the CEO of Shell. But you cannot see the content. This will have no real transparency and rather adds up to more speculations. Exposing the Diplomats:WIKILEAKS and Panama Papers expose the diplomats and mention their names openly, creating various controversies. This can be dangerous at times and brings forth the issue of privacy infringement, however pirate parties believe that this creates a sense of accountability and diplomats would not do inappropriate things due to the fear of being insulted in public. To be on the safer side, one can suggest to sensor the names and other personal information should be during such disclosures. But the whole issue is there because of the way the things function at the moment. Maintain Transparency:There is no transparency and no regulation in the current system. To make matters worse, the governments are not ready to accept variations. Open Source Government intends to maintain transparency by crowdsourcing, designing a clear blueprint, invoking interest by using the modern notions and presenting it smartly, so that people willingly engage in the government. How to implement legislation?:As discussed in the previous sessions, the law can be implemented in the following ways.Jury dutyHigher weightage to experts (educated people) in votingTown hall meetingsSortition and Elections Trust:Trust of citizens in the law (sovereignty) and trust in the government is one of the main issues which comes back to our discussion. Implementing legislation via Reward System:An uncertain suggestion for implementing the law was the Reward System. This system would be based on the participation of citizens. An example of this is the citizen pointing system in China, where citizens get points or credits and if they do not have enough points, it results in a list of disadvantages. Alibaba for instance uses Sesame Credits for it users depending on their online activity and trustworthiness. Wikipedia, for another instance, has a standard, failing to which the user cannot add or edit the information available on their site. You need to contribute enough to be able to add or edit information regarding an important subject.Reward system would also work like this, except that it would reward not through points or money but by providing services. If a person does not participate in legislation (for whatever reasons), they will not be deprived of the services. There will be a basic point system for everyone, considering the old, sick and needy ones. Follow-up suggestion: Legislation combined with execution:The legislation would be designed in such a way that people willingly participate in making and executing it. Everyone can participate in both, the process of legislation and the execution. There will not be money, only points. People will get points for participation, those points will be rewarded via services. Since people will be doing it all by themselves, there will not be a need for ministers. Setting up a standard:Not everyone from the society who is part of the government has the best intentions and when we involve everyone in legislation and execution, we need to have a standard. For increased reliability, we will establish a higher weightage for people with a political know-how, doctors, teachers, engineers, bureaucrats, PhDs and other experts. Natives will be preferred over outsiders. Minorities will be prior to others in decisions regarding minority issues. Or it could be that people get paid to educate themselves before they engage with the decision making process.There can be no ministers, only CEOs which will be selected by the board members and the board members will be regular citizens plus experts. No parliamentary system, only people working independently. The meaning of money and free market will then be different. “But is this not what communism is?” one member ...
    Más Menos
    2 h y 6 m
  • 2nd Open Source Governance public session

    2nd Open Source Governance public session
    Nov 18 2020
    The second public session of Open Source Governance held at Showroom MAMA on 19 February 2017, in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Intro music: Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod. licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)The following text unfolds the session by a timely order. The softwareIt should be a universal platform that should be presented with a basic list of must-read and must-watch to engage more people. Starting with small core groups to develop the software, then moving on to commitment-free annual events and lastly “peer-making” through the journey.  Iceland bankruptcy case–  Controversy of ICESAVEIcesave got bankrupt to the point that there was no money left even for small ATM transactions. Amidst economic crisis, government usually supports the bank, but in this case, after a referendum, the government did not. The economy fell and GDP dropped to zero. To worsen the situation, the Prime Minister’s name was in the Panama Papers for having offshore bank accounts.– Emergence of the Pirate Party:During these hopeless times Pirate party came into the spotlight. They became the voice of the people, acting as alternative for increased access to democracy. The good part being that if they did not do well, they were easily replaceable.–  Transition Town:Iceland is dependent on Nature and Neighbours. The very little population relies on fishing, crops and farming. They had a liberal party and socialist groups, both of which demanded decentralisation of administrative authority. The only difference was that the socialist groups sought government support while the liberals did not. Direct Democracy Lacks Respect for Minority Opinion:When a majority of the people sign a Referendum, the government has to abide by the decision of the majority. But what about the minority? Who will protect and respect the rights of minority? AAM ADMI Party in India:The Aaam Aadmi (common man) Party bearing the electoral symbol of broom was established with the idea of sweeping away corruption from India. The characteristic that distinguished them from status quo was transparent funding. The founder of the party first captured the sentiments of Calcutta city while later becoming the Chief Minister of New Delhi. Updating Blueprint of Representative System:The blueprint of representative democracy shall be updated with all the contemporary features and notions of the date while making a better use of the internet. FOSDEM – Free & Open Source Software Developers European Meeting:Inclusive of about 8000 people, with free entrance, this meeting was based on:1.       Technical Talks2.       Privacy3.       Control over Networking4.       Diverse Issues in Technology Domino Effect:In India, when it comes to political representation, people trust a person from their own community or tribe more as compared to a foreign person. The foreign person is least likely to understand what they’re going through. It is all about “Capturing the Sentiment”. This helps us conclude that engagement and political influence works differently in Asian countries. Referendums only Have Advisory Value:Referendums usually fail. They have no legal binding, but are only of advisory value unless more than 80% of the people vote. Australians wanted to remove the Queen, for instance, but the question of the referendum was so manipulative that people could not vote for a “YES”. Also, they are a burdensome public expense. Solution to a Complex Referendum:The information in the referendum shall be coherent. There should be proper guidelines regarding when it is right to issue a referendum and who is liable to vote, as not everyone is politically aware. Conducting Online Referendum:Conducting the referendum and broadcasting related information online is also a good option. This would encourage youth to actively participate while cutting down the costs associated with traditional referendums. David Van Reybrouk – Lottery:The idea of elections came after the French Revolution via Lottery. It was done by the elites, for the elites, to make sure the elites remain in power, because there was fear of the non-elite (poor) getting control. Thus, Van Reybrouk advocates against elections as it is not just about votes, but the people’s voice. SORTITION:What is a Good system?1.       Legislation in the form of Jury Duty or compulsory involvement.2.       Parties act as delegates and not for individual interests3.       City Hall Meetings. They bring forward the issues for everyone first-handed and in a more tangible and realistic manner. Also people restrict themselves from saying offensive things in person, compared to online debates. Remain Unbiased on the Internet – Save the Internet movement:There was free internet in India, but only six sites were accessible including Facebook. This caused a lot of political disturbance as people had access to the medium ...
    Más Menos
    2 h y 26 m
  • 1st Open Source Governance public session

    1st Open Source Governance public session
    Nov 17 2020

    The first public session of Open Source Governance held at Showroom MAMA on January 10 2017, in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

    Intro music: Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod. licenced under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)


    The following text unfolds the session by a timely order:

    First the initiator introduced the project and how it unfolded to its present status.

     

    Public Involvement in Governing:

    To allow for more engagement by the people in terms of how the country is run. The government should allow the people to vote on certain matters, where if the majority votes, the matters must be considered and resolved by the government.

     

    Delivery of the Information through Conflict of Interest Free Sources:

    For information, we rely on the media that hugely affects and influences how people think. It is found that the channels we get our daily news and information from, are usually funded by the entities that carry out lobbying such as CNN, FOX News, etc. Contradictory to this viewpoint, a member from the discussion pointed out that targeting the media industry is not a good idea, because then, where will we get our news from? To which, another member said, the smaller, more independent and reliable channels.

     

    Add to the Government:

    Another point made was that we should add to the government, not decompose or take away from it. With media considered as the fourth branch, we should add a fifth branch to it, where people have a say in how the government is run, via voting. It is a political practice in UK that if 10,000 people vote in support of an online petition, it has to be discussed in the parliament and government has to answer. And if it exceeds 100,000 then the parliament shall officially debate about it.

     

    Organizational Chart:

    The organization chart which has been designed so far, has removed the legislation branch from its core. The legislation and the constitution will be made by the users/members of that society. The user/member can affect the legislation in federal and regional scale directly and indirectly, depending on the issue being discussed. The federal issues will require inputs from all over the society, while the regional ones require direct involvement of the people from that region, or as well, indirect involvement of members from other regions. The regional legislation is affected by the federal one indirectly and upon its core principles.
    Más Menos
    1 h y 48 m