PUBLIC SESSIONS of Open Source Governance Podcast Por Pendar Nabipour arte de portada

PUBLIC SESSIONS of Open Source Governance

PUBLIC SESSIONS of Open Source Governance

De: Pendar Nabipour
Escúchala gratis

Open Source Governance is a project that aims to design a blueprint with which a group can collectively and inclusively form questions and find answers that can help organize their community. At the core of the idea lies the notion of governmentality. The concept departs from the disappointment with the representative systems in inclusively and fairly organizing societies, and observation of available tools (namely open-source programming) that can replace or challenge the current systems in place.

This is the public session episodes section of out podcast. The main podcast can be found as "Open Source Governance" on all podcast platforms, and here: https://opensourcegovernance.com/the-podcast/

All rights reserved. Arte Ciencia Ciencia Política Ciencias Sociales Política y Gobierno
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
Todavía no hay opiniones