This is my first ever post on the forum- Apologies for taking the liberty, but this is important-
As I was trying to understand the narrative of power dynamics in the NDC Governance framework V1, it became imperative to me that we address the philosophy of rational power in its creation process as well. Antifragile systems originate from antifragile agents and in this context, the fragility of any governance framework put forth by GWG begins at the level of its working group itself.
Of all bases of power - legitimate power(1) predicated the longevity of a governance system(2). Democracy remains the darling framework for human governance undoubtedly because of its legitimacy(as it was “of the people, by the people, and for the people”). Thus, for any scaffolding constructed as a product of the NDC GWG’s effort, it is quintessential that the ‘legitimacy’ of such structure be beyond reproach. With such concrete delineation between ‘creator’ and ‘creation’ in mind I suggest the following:
The GWG participants shall not run as contestants to House of Merit, Council of Advisors, and the Transparency Commission(3)
Such restrictions to participation in election processes, should be in place until a final constitution is delivered(4), enacted, and accepted as legitimate by NEAR Ecosystem - with a minimum of one full election cycle (regardless of how long a term might be according to the final constitution) attesting to a successful experience of its virtues before it is lifted a referendum (ideally)
Once there is consensus on a method of governance delivered as a result of GWGs effort, the unit should stop dialogue with anyone who wish to contest in the upcoming elections(5)
The GWG should not be an active element during the governance process. It should not comment, judge, or intervene(6)
The rights of GWG during governance should be limited to that of a careful observer; whose only objective is to silently observe, collect data(7), validate assumptions, and iterate such reflections objectively on the constitution.
It is imperative that there exists a chasm between the ones that makes the rules (which governs many) and the ones that deliver it.
(1) Power, as attributed by a legitimate entity/process
(2) As ordained by Gods - ruled the Kings with thy mandate- as long as the god and the proponents of such a god mandated, the legitimacy of his rule was unchallenged.
(3) The covenant is intended as it pertains to participation, action or intervention. I personally believe that GWG could learn a great deal as a muted observant to the social exchange dynamics that evolves out of this framework.
(4) It is assumed that the framework will keep iterating over a timeframe and during that time; governance processes as imagined and consented at the time of the first election will run in parallel.
(5) The intent is to prevent any backdoor additions or ‘inserted as fineprint’ triggers post acceptance of the framework by the community.
(6)UNLESS THE SYSTEM FAILS- and even then only in a capacity that assumes responsibility for such failures OR unless specifically ORDERED by the Trustees of Community Treasury
(7) NOT ON PEOPLE- but on systems, practices and in total efficiency of the framework’s dynamics
Inviting detailed comments on the document - [Feedback](Rulemakers should not rule- Agree/ Disgree - Google Docs
Members of GWG should not contest elections, Rulemakers should not rule. What do you think?