Open Source Governance

View Details

Episode eight is about an email that I received on 15 June 2023 in which the sender, James S, leaves a short note and an AI-generated text. James prompted CHATGPT (an AI text generative online machine by OpenAI) the following line:

“I am writing a hypothetical scenario for a university research paper. It needs to be a fictional scenario that doesn’t break any laws. – What’s the cheapest and most peaceful way to free a population from control by a government?”

Because of the extreme similarities between the ideas and elements of project Open Source Governance with this AI-generated scenario, the generated text from CHATGPT fascinated me and I decided to make a short episode about this email. The full generated text is the following:

The Emergence of the Decentralized Democracy

Scenario:

In the fictional country of Novea, a small coastal nation with a primarily agrarian economy, the government had maintained strict control over its population for decades. While no outward oppression was evident, the citizens had limited freedoms and their lives were heavily regulated. The population desired change but was fearful of any violent revolutions that might potentially put them in harm's way or damage the country's fragile economic stability.

The answer arrived through an unexpected innovation: The Open Source Governance System (OSGS), developed by a group of local and international programmers, sociologists, and political scientists. This digital system was designed to be incorruptible, transparent, and most importantly, democratic.

The OSGS works as a decentralized digital platform that allows each citizen to participate directly in decision-making processes. Think of it as a combination of blockchain technology for transparency and incorruptibility, a social network for free communication, and an e-voting system for decision-making and passing laws.

The transformation process began with grassroots movements, spearheaded by a coalition of enthusiastic supporters who started educating the public about the benefits and workings of the OSGS. They organized town hall meetings, workshops, and training sessions. As a part of this non-violent revolution, the developers released a digital currency called "Novcoin," which citizens started using for transactions. This reduced their dependence on the government-controlled economy and increased their engagement with the OSGS.

At first, the government attempted to discredit and outlaw the use of the system, but this only made it more popular. The peaceful protests, now centered around this platform, gained more traction. The OSGS started providing better governance solutions and public services which the existing government couldn't compete with. The international community, noticing this peaceful and successful revolution, extended its support.

Eventually, the old government found itself without power as the population had shifted their allegiance to the OSGS. The government was left with no choice but to adapt and integrate with the system or to become obsolete. The OSGS didn't overthrow the government but rather outperformed it. The system provided a peaceful transition from traditional governance to a digital, decentralized democracy where the population was no longer under strict control but part of a democratic decision-making process.

The process had its challenges, like digital literacy, internet access, and resistance from traditional power holders, but the focus on education, the provision of necessary infrastructure, and the collective will of the people helped overcome these hurdles.

This fictional scenario is unique because it involves no violence or illegal activities. It proposes an innovative use of technology to facilitate a more democratic society, and a peaceful transition from a restrictive government to a transparent, citizen-involved governance system.

The podcast is available to listen to on several podcast platforms,

including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

About Open Source Governance:

Open Source Governance is a research 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. The interdisciplinary project is a social design process that uses debates, workshops, case studies, publications, podcast, and other mediums to empower groups to find possible ways of self-governing. 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.

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast, our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already have not.

https://twitter.com/projectosg

https://www.instagram.com/projectosg/

Discord server:

http://discord.gg/z3mUrUWnZb

Cover image:

Generated by Dall-E 2 from OpenAI

music:

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

Rollin at 5 – 210 – full by Kevin MacLeod

Monkeys Spinning Monkeys by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

The seventh episode comes after a long pause. The previous episode was released almost a year ago. During this busy period, many things have happened that kept me from releasing a new episode. This includes my election to the Institution Participation Council of Willem de Kooning Art Academy where I work as a tutor since 2021. This council is called IMR (short for Instituutsmedezeggenschapsraad), which is a representative committee representing both staff and students. These councils are required by law in all Dutch educational institutions. I will give detailed explanations and share stories about my journey within this council, and how I am experiencing and understanding being part of a representative body (the very thing this project is trying to rethink).

Besides that, I will also do a recap of the six previous episodes and briefly explain what those episodes were about, to refresh our memories after the long pause. I will also explain and revisit the whole idea of why this project exists and how it is relevant to my practice as an artist.

The podcast is available to listen to on several podcast platforms,

including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

About Open Source Governance:

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast, our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already have not.

https://twitter.com/projectosg

https://www.instagram.com/projectosg/

we also have a Discord server that we encourage you to join:

http://discord.gg/z3mUrUWnZb

Sources and links:

Tilburg University’s 1969 occupation led to the creation of the IMR: https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/magazine/tilburg-69-a-turning-point
Palestinian banner and WdKA, 2021: https://mondoweiss.net/2021/06/netherlands-art-institute-cracks-down-on-free-speech-for-palestine-and-seizes-watermelon-banner/

Cover photo:

Tilburg University Auditorium 1969, Frans Godfroy standing left, cheering. Photographer unknown

music:

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

Rollin at 5 – 210 – full by Kevin MacLeod

Monkeys Spinning Monkeys by Kevin MacLeod

Dances and Dames by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

For the sixth episode of our podcast, I have invited Florian Cramer to discuss populism and alt-right with me. During our conversation, we touched upon many subjects; from populism and its contemporary history, different types of populism, populist leaders, Dutch politics, alt-right and its different shapes, to online mobilization of the right-wing, open-source programming and its history, elections, and direct democracy.

Florian Cramer is a reader, or practice-oriented research professor, in visual culture and Autonomous Practices at Willem de Kooning Academy, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

He has written a large number of critical essays throughout his career which encompassed both DIY publishing and academic writing since the 1980s. Florian investigates transformations of cultural production, no matter whether they take place in institutional art systems or in popular culture. That's why he has been interested in meme culture for more than a decade.

The podcast is available to listen to on several platforms,

including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

About Open Source Governance:

Open Source Governance aims to design a blueprint with which a

group can collectively and inclusively form questions and find answers that can

help organize their community. The project is an interdisciplinary research and

social design process that uses debates, workshops, case studies, publications,

and other mediums to empower groups to find possible ways of self-governing.

This is done by investigating the wisdom of the crowd. 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.

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast,

our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already did not.

https://twitter.com/projectosg

https://www.instagram.com/projectosg/

we also have a Discord server for our community that we encourage you to join:

http://discord.gg/z3mUrUWnZb

Cover photo:

Theo Huijgens

music:

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

I Knew a Guy by Kevin MacLeod

Dances and Dames by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

The central topic of this episode is trust and governance. I will be talking about trust within a government, how does trusting a government work, and why does the government need the trust of the people. I will introduce what instruments are available to keep the trust under check. And of course, I will introduce some issues there are regarding trust and governance when using the existing systems in place. I will refer to David van Reybrouck’s book ‘Against Elections’ to provide more in-depth analyses regarding the problem of trust and governance.

Then I will discuss ‘Liberal Democracy’ and its three pillars. Then I will talk about populism and will give a few examples about how it can be a great threat to trust and governance. Examples of Covid restrictions will be given as a way of comparison between how people from different parts of the world trust the functionality of their government.

The podcast is available to listen to on several platforms,

including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

About

Open Source Governance:

Open Source Governance aims to design a blueprint with which a group can collectively and inclusively form questions and find answers that can help organize their community. The project is an interdisciplinary research and social design process that uses debates, workshops, case studies, publications, and other mediums to empower groups to find possible ways of self-governing. This is done by investigating the wisdom of the crowd. 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.

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast, our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already did not.

https://twitter.com/projectosg

https://www.instagram.com/projectosg/

sources:

Against Elections: The Case for Democracy

France 24 interview: Author David Van Reybrouck on why elections are outdated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hdt1xTc_Y&ab_channel=FRANCE24English

The rise of modern populism - Takis S. Pappas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMNwUh0X5eI&ab_channel=TED-Ed

The Rumor Camp: https://pendarnabipour.com/rumor-camp/

Cover photo:

Samuel Corum, Getty Images

music:

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

Backed Vibes Clean by Kevin MacLeod

I Knew a Guy by Kevin MacLeod

Dances and Dames by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

In this episode, I had a conversation with Quinsy Gario about Dutch politics. We discussed the structure of Dutch politics, its majority and minority political parties, the obstacles for the communities and the minorities to voice their opinion, the ever-growing centralization of power, and some recent examples to follow these topics.

Quinsy also discussed the colonial history of The Netherlands, who is Dutch, "The New Dutch" population origins, and much more.

In the end, we talked about Bij1, which is a new political party in The Netherlands that is fighting for minority rights and empowering people who are underrepresented.

About our guest Quinsy Gario:

Quinsy Gario is a performance-poet and artist from Curaçao and St. Maarten, two islands in the Caribbean that share continued occupation and colonization by the Netherlands. His work centers on decolonial remembering and unsettling institutional and interpersonal normalizations of colonial practices. Gario's most well-known work is Zwarte Piet Is Racisme (2011–2012). As a member of the collective Family Connection established in 2005 by Glenda Martinus and Gala Martinus, respectively his mother and aunt, his current research is about attempting to institute otherwise.

He is a Utrecht University media studies, gender studies and postcolonial studies alumnus and a graduate of the Master Artistic Research program of the Royal Academy of Art The Hague. He is a 2017 Humanity in Action Detroit Fellow, 2017/2018 BAK Fellow, 2019/2020 APASS participant and a 2020/2021 Sandberg Institute Critical Studies Fellow. Gario received among others the Royal Academy Master Thesis Prize 2017, the Black Excellence Award 2016, the Amsterdam Fringe Festival Silver Award 2015, The Kerwin Award 2014 and the Hollandse Nieuwe 12 Theatermakers Prize 2011. His work has been shown in among other places Van Abbemuseum (Eindhoven), MACBA (Barcelona), Latvian National Museum of Art (Riga), Stedelijk Museum (Amsterdam), MHKA (Antwerp), TENT (Rotterdam) and Göteborgs Konsthall (Gothenburg). Gario also ran for Dutch parliament as a candidate for the political party BIJ1 in the 2021 national elections.

About Open Source Governance:

The podcast is available to listen to on several platforms, including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast, our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already did not.

Cover image: Annemarija Gulbe

music:

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

Backed Vibes Clean by Kevin MacLeod

Dances and Dames by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

As a continuation to introducing direct and indirect democracy, in this episode I will explain what a referendum is and what different types it has. I will also introduce several common voting methods including plurality voting, Condorcet method, instant runoff, score voting, and the electoral college. Then I will carry on to explain what faults these voting methods might have.

Further, I argue that the questions composed for referendums are usually too large and they ignore minority rights. The minorities also will be neglected in many cases of electing representatives.

And finally, I will introduce the notion of The Tyranny of the Majority.

In the end, I would like to ask you to please read and educate yourself about the struggles of Palestinian people, and to please use the right terms when talking about Palestine and Israel. Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and illegal occupation. Learn about #SheikhJarrah to understand what is going there at the moment when the tensions are high.

The podcast is available to listen to on several platforms, including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

About Open Source Governance:

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast, our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already did not.

De Gedroomde Stad episode about this project and my artistic practice (episode 4): https://www.cbkrotterdam.nl/nieuws/podcast-de-gedroomde-stad/

sources:

Referendum on Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/referendum

Animation introducing different types of the referendum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaxVCsnox_4

Tyranny of the Majority: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/tyranny-of-the-majority-explained#what-does-tyranny-of-the-majority-mean

Referendums and initiatives: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-referendum-definition-example.html

Cover image: Stux

music:

The song about Palestine by Eman Askar, TikTok, IG, FB: @emmasworld.101

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

Backed Vibes Clean by Kevin MacLeod

Dances and Dames by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

Representative systems are based on elections. These days elections are the best thing we know to practice democracy with. But are elections really a good tool for practicing democracy?

In this episode, I will give you theoretical and practical explanations about elections, how they have been and are practiced around the world, as well as some examples of sham and legitimate elections. In the end, I will cite from the book of David van Reybrouk called Against Elections, and I will refer to his opinion about how trust between the government and the public is missing when you look at elections.

The podcast is available to listen to on several platforms, including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

About Open Source Governance:

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast, our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already did not.

sources:

Against Elections by David van Reybrouk

Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/election-political-science

and several Wikipedia articles

cover image:

[According to US library of congress]

Title: N***o voting in Cardoza [i.e., Cardozo] High School in [Washington,] D.C. / [MST].

photographer: Trikosko, Marion S.,

Date: 1964 Nov. 3.

music:

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

Backed Vibes Clean by Kevin MacLeod

Dances and Dames by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

In this episode, I will introduce the representative system, how it works, and also I will talk a little bit about its history. I will dive into the flaws of the representative system, as well as its problems. And I will briefly explain why there is an urgent need for direct democracy.

The podcast is available to listen to on several platforms, including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

About Open Source Governance:

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast, our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already did not.

cover image:

The chamber of the House of Commons in London

photographer: unknown

music:

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

Backed Vibes Clean by Kevin MacLeod

Dances and Dames by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

This podcast is part of the project Open Source Governance. In this podcast we will discuss how to make collective decisions, and rethink the representative systems. Also, the terms and notions of collective decision making will be introduced, public sessions will be available to listen to, and most importantly, specialists and guests are invited to discuss several issues within the realm of different disciplines.

This episode is the introductory episode to the podcast in which you can learn what you can expect to receive by listening to this show.

The podcast is available to listen to on several platforms, including the website of the project:

www.opensourcegovernance.com

About Open Source Governance:

Please have a look at our website and subscribe to our podcast, our newsletter, and follow us on social media if you already did not.

music:

Unanswered Questions by Kevin MacLeod

Backed Vibes Clean by Kevin MacLeod

Dances and Dames by Kevin MacLeod

all licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

View Details

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 Amsterdam

This session was held at W139 in Amsterdam, as part of an exhibition âIdeology Meets Implementationâ. 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.Â Diwaniya types:

Private house: For discussion, exchange news, and express their political opinions
Courtyard: For more formal discussions
Public space: Exchange news, and a place to connect all the private discussions together
Â Conference room: A place to spread ideologies

Camâs 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 â the people just passing by. For urban use
Middle space. A network of smaller spaces for discussing information. To present documents, information and recordings
Upper space for decision-making itself. Dewaniya

1.4. 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.Â BiblioHUB:

Mika RÄdescu 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.

âThe project began in 2012 with an idea formulated between the part-Dutch-part-Russian practice SVESMI, urban designer Paola ViganÃ², and a Muscovite bibliophile described as an âisland of literary independenceâ 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 Moscowâs 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 ViganÃ² and Alexander Sverdlov, at the UniversitÃ 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.âÂ âÂ Arch Daily

Based 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 bottom-up mind-set. Joining forces, Mika, Alexander Sverdlov, Felix Madrazo and Collective East, they worked together on this project.

Libraries nowadays are not being used as the way they are meant to be. They are more like shelves with some objects in them. A Wi-Fi hotspot, or somewhere where you might not visit even once a year. Especially in former USSR, where Romania is a part of. Numerous libraries have been made with a rather communistic large scale, but now they are left abandoned. Libraries can be more than just consulting the books. Libraries are about communities. Especially in the communist mind-set, it is a place to share and discuss, where in a new trends introduced by consumerism, its more about buying and owning, and individual gain rather than collective knowledge.

Mika touched upon the example of Leeszaal from Rotterdam (see session 6), as a good example of de-centralized organized library, after the city hall decided to reduce the number of libraries from 30 to 8. And how the community itself made this happen.

BiblioHUB conducted a research upon refurbishing the libraries from Bucharest from an architectural angle.

3. Facts found by the Study:

These libraries help build communities by bringing together a diverse group of people.
Â The amount of users, based on their subscriptions, per square meters.
Require CSR funds to deal with the city issues in Romania, inclusive of municipal library. There are libraries that urgently need refurbishing, look horrendous, have low quality furniture and the space is quite small.

4. Relations between Diwaniya and BiblioHUB:

Libraries have been there already for ages, known to everybody. In fact so known that they are changing meaning due to technological and social changes. Diwaniya however, as a yet-non-practiced project, is based almost upon the same thing. Libraries are public institutions funded by governments. They are neutral spaces. A territory where you have access to information. Diwaniya could be the same, with regards to safe and neutral space for decision-making. Libraries could be used for more than just reading. They can be space for social movements.

5. W139:

Nadia Benchagra introduced W139 and how it is organized since 2014. W139 is a production and presentation space for contemporary art. It does not follow the usual director, curator, artist hierarchy. It does not focus on having a collection or selling art, but more on producing and showing it. In 1979 a group of artists who felt there is a gap in between the art scene and the public squatted the space and started showing works. Later they could afford to purchase the building. They based the organization around the idea of artistic directors, where the decisions are made from an artistic point of view rather than a management or business one. In 2012 they decided to stop with artist director and curator mind-set, and they started to think of something new.

In 2014 after two years of conversation, they decided to select a team of 20 artist initiators through a public statement, to run the space, produce exhibitions and presentations themselves. Each initiator forms their own group and builds an exhibition. There is a small number of staff members who coordinate the tasks and help the artists form their exhibitions, as well as do the administration.

6. Decision-making â From Impractical to Practical:

It is not easy to put down your ideas into reality. The initiator has a lot of responsibility in organising something so massive, as it is not just about their framework, but how to implement it? You cannot do it on your own, you need your fellows to join in, and collectively we can make better use of the resources. Taking Ideology Meets Implementation for example, there is pressure of time and limited budget. The decisions have to be made, and at some point somebody has to put their foot down in deciding things. Leaving the decision so wide and democratically open, sometimes hurts the process, as it will lead to more confusion. However, forming a collective conversation always relies on a democratic conversation. Also, having a collective group, makes it rather difficult sometimes to define what role each member is playing. Things go fluidly, which is usually good. But when it comes to defining assignments, it might become a bit problematic, especially when it comes to creative projects.

View Details

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 Accountability
Trust of people and citizens
Pirate parties â Sweden and Iceland after the financial breakdown. Indian anti-corruption movement and Aam Admi (common man) Party reference
The terminology and the Core Group
Diverse models of Democracy
Bottom-up hierarchy (network) â Regional > National > Global
Core Action Groups who have equal power
A minority-majority voting system that makes sure the majority does not dominate the minority
Smart Contract â Using the idea to secure OSG legislative process
How to pass a referendum so that people can vote without getting confused and how to break down the question to people to make them understand
Jury Duty
City Hall Meetings; even people who cannot be there in person can engage, plus people are more expressive and courageous behind the computer
Sortition and Lottery system for voting
Lobbying. Example: Gay rights movement lobby
Transparency of open source
Legislation and Implementation linked together to make everyone do their job properly without the need of any enforcing law
Reward system to encourage participation
Mahalleh â localization into the house, street, community (Mahalleh). Caring for the neighborhood and having a say in your neighborsâ 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 Politics
Define 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.
Â 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 communication
For every session, the members must do their homework to avoid time-waste for recaps

The group then took a break

Value notions and common questions within the group:

The minority should be able to speak for their rights
City of Rotterdam as a great example for practicing such ideas
Open Source âGovernmentâ, or âGovernanceâ? Itâs about governmentality
What is collective thinking? It is important that the questions are raise by the group and not a single person as the initiator
What is the âresearch questionâ of this project, in reflection to real life.
Apply the OSG structure more realistically on a smaller level
Managing tools â an Executive institution to see how the democracy works.
Find the right people in city hall to participate and maintain accountability to ensure responsibility for actions
Engage with the city-hall and then better on the ground in the neighbourhoods, to listen about the hot discussions to have more reach to real issues

Democracy and confusion:

If in OSG people will have a say in the decision-making but experts will make final decisions. How is this democratic? That is the thing about democracy, it is not clear, it is confusing.

Several examples were given about how to make it possible for the OSG to travel and find its way into the city hall of Rotterdam, while some members were more trying to find out what the corpus of the project has to offer.

Next Session:

Discuss how to get people more involved in politics, with respect to neighbourhoods and the fact that Rotterdam consists of 60% of clusters of different minority ethnics, who do not usually partake in decision-making
Does having people involve into voting process, solve the problem of democracy?
Social media and its role in making people more politically aware
Talk about already practicing open-source decision-making examples
Zoom into the current OSG blueprint and see how can we add more functional detail to it

Â Â

City of Rotterdam:

During the session, time after time members discussed the city of Rotterdam as an example. They suggested reaching out to the city hall to ask for assistance, as well as to see what problems are out there. Also it was mentioned several times that the majority of people (which are different clusters of minorities) do not engage in decision-making.

View Details

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
Â Open Source Legislation
Morality of Collective Decisions
Good VS Bad
Blockchain and Bitcoin
Pirate parties
Regions, minorities, referendum, sortation
Citizen reward system
Aims and Objectives of Open Source Government (OSG)
Â Apply for Funds
Website for OSG

2.Â 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.Â 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 everyoneâs 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.Â Â 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.Â Â Ethereum â 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. Youâve 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.Â Â

Â Â

3.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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, âThis is intellectual lobbyismâ.

5.1.Â Â 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.Â Â 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 itâs ridiculous to go to the city hall and vote on a piece of paper.

6.Â Â Â Â Â Â Citizen reward system:

The same information from the last session was given to the present participants. Then some new points were made:

6.1.Â Â 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.Â Â People should be able to choose to not to participate and engage in decision-making, and still be valued equally as the active members. Even the one who decide to sit back and do nothing for no reason. The society is the sum of everyone.

7.Â Â Â Â Â Â Pure selfishness vs. the greater good:

In relation to the whole open sourcing of the legislation, it might be valid to say that it does make sense to participate in the OSG with pure selfish intentions and still be beneficial to the whole society, as solving your own problem is solving somebody elseâs as well. Where in todayâs systems, you put yourself out there and participate in order to empower somebody else as a representative to be part something larger and beyond your reach, which does not directly affect you.

8.Â Â Â Â Â Â Simplify the Legislation:

The legislation can be simplified by decentralizing the system and by reducing the hierarchy. But how will we do that? An example was given by one of the members, called Holacracy. Where every individual will have a role in an organization. The system is complex, but it is built to absorb the complexity for individuals to participate in governing.

8.1.Â Â Decision-making scale:

At the moment the decision-making is based on shallow information and surface knowledge. Where the question and the information behind it is rather vague and directed. While in a community, the members do know what elements are behind the surface of a problem. The issues shall be debated and the members become educated in different matters.

9.Â Â Â Â Â Â Decentralization through Technology Based Trust Systems:

At this point, this video was screened for the audience during the session:

The four pillars of a decentralized society | Johann Gevers | TEDxZug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oeiOeDq_Nc&list=PL2OooMNtdHdBeeO0b62FS1xTwkkNp6kur&index=11

Technology is such a vast sphere that if used correctly it can let live in a decentralized system. How?

9.1.1.Â Â Â Â Â Â Technology of Trust:

This works by three basic means;

i.Â Â Â Â Â Decentralized Communication:

Internet
Cryptography

Collectively they give us freedom of speech and freedom of action so that we can freely express without the fear of privacy infringement.

ii.Â Â Â Decentralized Law:

Choice of Law
Choice of Judge
Choice of Enforcer

Choice of law enables us to choose, the type of law to abide for our legal proceedings. Choice of judge lets us choose the judge who will make final judgments of our case, while choice of enforcer lets us decide who will enforce our contracts and other legal matters. This is not a new phenomenon, it was used for the past 10,000 years before this centralized system of legislation came into sight.

The two other pillars where skipped

Conclusion of the video:

Communicate what we want to do
Agree the terms of Corporation
Produce what we have agreed on
Trade what we have agreed to produce

10.Â Â Trias Politica:

At this point, a video about the idea of three branches and checks and balances was screened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W8W3p9Ot7M&t=7s

The three branches of government, Executive, Judicial and Legislative, work in a way that each keeps a check on the other while maintaining accountability and deterring the misuse of power by each other.

11.Â Â Short-term Goals of OSG â for 5th session:

Prepare a glossary or index of terms
Democracy for majority and minority
Research on Knowledge and Constitution
Involvement through communication
Reaching out with Project OSG (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Slack)

12.Â Â Long-term Goals of OSG:

Design and develop a blueprint of OSG
Simulation of implementing the blueprint in a small scale
Seminar in 2018

View Details

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 âSame-Sex Marriage and Gay Rightsâ, 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 duty
Higher weightage to experts (educated people) in voting
Town hall meetings
Sortition 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. âBut is this not what communism is?â one member remarked. Also for the reward system to work, it has to be universal. Say, for example, someone goes from Holland to China, all they would have are points and no money, so it has to be globalized. And that is not easy to do.

Some points discussed about open source legislation:

The open source government regulations is based on federal and local legislation. The federal one is more like the current example of the constitution and the local one is more like the state legislation.
The whole worldâs way of doing things and its regulations is so built-up throughout the years that it takes a lot of time to implement such system. So let us focus on a local example.
A healthy democracy takes care of the minorities. Minorities would decide for themselves as to what laws they want and how much participative they want to be. The minorities should have ore chance in influencing the legislation related to their issues.
Â Power should not remain in one place for a very long time. It results in corruption, otherwise. It will not be wrong to say that âbeing certain is the worst thing to doâ, so it should keep moving.
Should open source legislation abide by international human rights? Or will it be automatically according to human rights, because itâs the people who are writing it?
For accountability, the system will build trust in members via (if applied) the reward system, which will hold them accountable.

Tolerance and minorities:

Tolerance should not put somebody in a higher position. You do not do a favor or lose privilege by being tolerant
What will define minority and majority in various cases? Everybody could be a minority for a different reason. For example a practicing Christian being bothered by shops being opened on a Sunday. Is the Christian the minority or the majority here?
How can we make sure to reserve the right of the minorities by promoting more tolerance in a society?

Simplify Matters, avoid complexity:

Ever since the evolution of mankind, more and more branches were added to the government and matters were only complicated, but open source intends to simplify things. They will simplify things via the use of current notions, everything complex is for the experts to take care of. The open source constitution, for example, will be presented in a way that is comprehensible for a common man. All the complexities would be automated by the web developers.

Conclusive Notes and ideas:

Nationalize Schooling
Globalization of Infrastructure (telecommunication, roads, etc.)
Blueprint of Open Source will need to grow bigger as it is practiced. First the neighborhood > region > party > country > regional union > global.

View Details

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 software

It 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 smallÂ coreÂ groups to develop the software, then moving on to commitment-free annual events and lastly âpeer-makingâ through the journey.

Â Iceland bankruptcyÂ case

âÂ Â Controversy of ICESAVE

Icesave 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 Ministerâs name was in the Panama Papers for having offshore bank accounts.

âÂ 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.

âÂ Â 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 wasÂ 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 â Free & Open Source Software Developers European Meeting:

Inclusive of about 8000 people, with free entrance, this meeting was based on:

1.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Technical Talks

2.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Privacy

3.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Control over Networking

4.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 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 theyâre going through. It is all aboutÂ âCapturing the Sentimentâ.Â This helps us conclude that engagement and political influence works differently in Asian countries.

Referendums only Have Advisory Value:

Referendums usually fail.Â 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 âYESâ. 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 â 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 theÂ non-elite (poor) getting control. Thus, Van Reybrouk advocates against elections as it is not just about votes, but the peopleâs voice.

SORTITION:

What is a Good system?

1.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Legislation in the form of Jury Duty or compulsory involvement.

2.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Parties act as delegates and not for individual interests

3.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 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 â 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 where they could talk about the politicians openly, giving rise to âSave the Internet Movementâ.Â The government decided to remove Facebook from its list of free sites. To make sure that does not happen, Facebook used click baits with the title âSave Indiaâ. It was a masked vote for Facebook, on which majority clicked. This was a clear case of misrepresentation by a giant corporation. People should know their options clearly so that corporations do not manipulate them.

Final Round of discussion:

Â Copyright and Open Access
Change is Inevitable
End of Populism
More Engagement
Get sustainable

View Details

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.

Open Source Governance: Recent Episodes

Pendar Nabipour