Decision making - Revision history

TiberiusB: /* Specificity of OVNs */

2026-09-16T19:56:25Z

Specificity of OVNs

TiberiusB: /* Theory */

2026-05-23T18:28:18Z

Theory

TiberiusB at 19:59, 5 May 2026

2026-05-05T19:59:03Z

Show changes

TiberiusB: /* See also */

2026-05-05T19:19:00Z

TiberiusB at 19:33, 19 April 2026

2026-04-19T19:33:53Z

TiberiusB: /* Actors and scope */

2024-04-09T18:03:45Z

Actors and scope

TiberiusB at 16:44, 9 February 2024

2024-02-09T16:44:52Z

TiberiusB: /* Specificity of OVNs */

2024-01-04T07:27:17Z

Specificity of OVNs

TiberiusB: /* metamaps.cc */

2024-01-04T07:10:49Z

metamaps.cc

TiberiusB: /* Sensorica */

2024-01-04T07:09:04Z

Sensorica

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 16 September 2026
Line 101:		Line 101:


−	Second, we need to consider that an OVN (or a sub-network such as a open [[venture]]) is a collaborative environment, a socioeconomic setting in which ideas, initiatives, and [[projects]] compete with each other for [[resources]], NOT individuals competing against each other. This means that ''decision making'' processes must not be understood as adversarial (ex. election voting where political parties fight over power by dividing the population using ideology and other means). This is why various types of ''consensus building'' mechanisms are favored in collaborative communities. A consensus building process is designed to build ''shared understanding'' and to collectively evaluate the possible outcomes of a decision as a [[benefit]] to a great majority. The accent is put on b''uilding bridges'', ''making compromises'', ''choosing options that lead to an overall positive [[value]] experience'' (see above). A form of ''consensus'' tied to a ''lazy democracy'' process has been used in [[Sensorica]], but as we will see below, OVNs should not heavily ~~reply~~ on ''group decision making'' processes. Hard disagreements are resolved by [[forking]], which is a peaceful way of departing and exploring alternative paths.	+	Second, we need to consider that an OVN (or a sub-network such as a open [[venture]]) is a collaborative environment, a socioeconomic setting in which ideas, initiatives, and [[projects]] compete with each other for [[resources]], NOT individuals competing against each other. This means that ''decision making'' processes must not be understood as adversarial (ex. election voting where political parties fight over power by dividing the population using ideology and other means). This is why various types of ''consensus building'' mechanisms are favored in collaborative communities. A consensus building process is designed to build ''shared understanding'' and to collectively evaluate the possible outcomes of a decision as a [[benefit]] to a great majority. The accent is put on b''uilding bridges'', ''making compromises'', ''choosing options that lead to an overall positive [[value]] experience'' (see above). A form of ''consensus'' tied to a ''lazy democracy'' process has been used in [[Sensorica]], but as we will see below, OVNs should not heavily rely on ''group decision making'' processes. Hard disagreements are resolved by [[forking]], which is a peaceful way of departing and exploring alternative paths.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 =Theory=
 An [[OVN]] is a dynamic and diverse ecosystem with complex interconnected processes. [[Governance]] is the ''set of principles and processes by which the OVN is collaboratively developed by [[participants]] ([[affiliates]]) through [[collective intelligence]]''. Different types of ''sense-making'', ''decision making'', and ''responsiveness'' are needed for efficient and optimal conduct. The [[governance]] framework provides different [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making decision making] mechanisms that may be applied. Sub-networks (i.e. different [[projects]] or [[communities]]) are free to adopt ''decision making'' processes that suite their ''culture'' and philosophy, as long as the results allow for a stable interface with the rest of the network.
 == What is a decision? ==

@@ Line 238: / Line 238: @@
 =See also=
 Links for decision making documents from individuals and organizations close to the OVN model.
 From Bayle Shank
 * [http://bayleshanks.com/wiki.pl?ideas-groupDecisionMaking-fluidDemocracy-intro ideas-groupDecisionMaking-fluidDemocracy-intro]
 * [http://bayleshanks.com/wiki.pl?ideas-groupDecisionMaking-fluidDemocracy-bylaws-simplifiedForumRules ideas-groupDecisionMaking-fluidDemocracy-bylaws-simplifiedForumRules]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 '''Definition:''' Decision-making can be regarded as a cognitive process resulting in the selection of a course of action (including the expression of an idea or opinion) among several alternative possibilities. Every decision-making process produces a final choice that may or may not prompt action. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making Wikipedia - Decision making]
-Here we are more concerned with collective decision making processes that correspond to the [[OVN]] organizational model and its economic model. In other words, how the fruits of collaboration, the artifacts that we create, as well as the organization itself, evolve through p2p processes and interactions. Sometimes we need to make conscious decisions, weighing pros and cons of various alternatives (making individual and collective conscious choices). Other times, things evolve through emergent processes like [[stigmergy]], where every [[participant]] makes allocation decisions on what matters most in context, at a given time.
+Here we are more concerned with collective decision making processes that correspond to the [[OVN]] organizational model and its economic model. In other words, how the fruits of collaboration, the artifacts that we create, as well as the organization itself, evolve through p2p processes and interactions. Sometimes we need to make conscious decisions, weighing pros and cons of various alternatives (making individual and collective conscious choices). Other times, things evolve through emergent processes like [[stigmergy]], where every [[participant]] makes [[allocation]] decisions on what matters most in context, at a given time.
 ==Self-determination==
@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 Examples
-* allocation of resources - some type of resource
+* [[allocation]] of resources - some type of resource
 * modifying the governance - some norms
 * exclusion of an [[affiliate]] (a member)
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
-There are different types of decisions to be made within an [[venture]]. Some of them refer to incremental additions to a project or [[venture]]. Others determine a path among different possibilities, not only binary cases. Decisions over allocation of [[resources]] should be less common within an [[OVN]], since [[resources]] and capacity can always be increased by affiliating with other OVNs or through [[crowdsourcing]] (the resource allocation process is bottom up in OVNs).
+There are different types of decisions to be made within an [[venture]]. Some of them refer to incremental additions to a project or [[venture]]. Others determine a path among different possibilities, not only binary cases. Decisions over [[allocation]] of [[resources]] should be less common within an [[OVN]], since [[resources]] and capacity can always be increased by affiliating with other OVNs or through [[crowdsourcing]] (the resource [[allocation]] process is bottom up in OVNs).
 If we think of good decision making as a way to insure a good development path, one way to approach decision making in an [[OVN]] or an open [[venture]] is to reduce its reliance on group decision, deliberation. In other words, the OVN must rely more on [[stigmergy]].
@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
-[[DAOs]] grapple with the problem of [[resource]] allocation as transfer of tokens from a shared pool (or treasury) to various projects. Most of them use proposals and onchain voting mechanisms to transfer funds to various initiatives. This problem is in fact self-induced by pulling tokens into a shared wallet, the pool, instead of using a [[crowdfunding]] pattern, effectively [[crowdsourcing]] the allocation problem, which is more compatible with stigmergic processes.
+[[DAOs]] grapple with the problem of [[resource]] [[allocation]] as transfer of tokens from a shared pool (or treasury) to various projects. Most of them use proposals and onchain voting mechanisms to transfer funds to various initiatives. This problem is in fact self-induced by pulling tokens into a shared wallet, the pool, instead of using a [[crowdfunding]] pattern, effectively [[crowdsourcing]] the [[allocation]] problem, which is more compatible with stigmergic processes.
-Within [[Sensorica]], some ventures also had to work with shared accounts, usually held in trust by a [[Custodian]], containing funds from grants or partners. The allocation scheme in this case replies more on [[planning]] and ongoing self organization, using the [[NRP-CAS]] not on explicit group decisions like in [[DAOs]], based on proposals. Sensoricans have reported very few problems with this process. Moreover, Sensorica's economic model relies heavily on [[crowdsourcing]] at every level, drastically reducing reliance on monetary currency.
+Within [[Sensorica]], some ventures also had to work with shared accounts, usually held in trust by a [[Custodian]], containing funds from grants or partners. The [[allocation]] scheme in this case replies more on [[planning]] and ongoing self organization, using the [[NRP-CAS]] not on explicit group decisions like in [[DAOs]], based on proposals. Sensoricans have reported very few problems with this process. Moreover, Sensorica's economic model relies heavily on [[crowdsourcing]] at every level, drastically reducing reliance on monetary currency.

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 The choice can be made at random. This happens when the actor(s) have no information on the situation and simply toss a coin. In absence of information we tend to rely on [[trust]], i.e. follow the opinion of other individuals who are recognized to know more ([[reputation]]). This can also happen when other decision making mechanisms are absent.
 The choice can be educated, a result of an effort of analysis. Voluntarily biased analysis amounts to manipulation and to an influenced decision. There is a distinction between genuine analysis and understanding and false/deceiving analysis and explanation.
 ==Actors and scope==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 =Theory=
-An [[OVN]] is a dynamic and diverse ecosystem with complex interconnected processes. [[Governance]] is the set of principles and processes by which the OVN is collaboratively developed by participants ([[affiliates]]) through [[collective intelligence]]. Different types of sense-making, decision making, and responsiveness are needed for efficient and optimal conduct. The [[governance]] framework provides different [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making decision making] mechanisms that may be applied. Sub-networks (i.e. different projects or communities) are free to adopt decision making processes that suite their culture and philosophy, as long as the results allow for a stable interface with the rest of the network.
+An [[OVN]] is a dynamic and diverse ecosystem with complex interconnected processes. [[Governance]] is the set of principles and processes by which the OVN is collaboratively developed by [[participants]] ([[affiliates]]) through [[collective intelligence]]. Different types of sense-making, decision making, and responsiveness are needed for efficient and optimal conduct. The [[governance]] framework provides different [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making decision making] mechanisms that may be applied. Sub-networks (i.e. different projects or communities) are free to adopt decision making processes that suite their culture and philosophy, as long as the results allow for a stable interface with the rest of the network.
 == What is a decision? ==
 '''Definition:''' Decision-making can be regarded as a cognitive process resulting in the selection of a course of action (including the expression of an idea or opinion) among several alternative possibilities. Every decision-making process produces a final choice that may or may not prompt action. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making Wikipedia - Decision making]
-Here we are more concerned with collective decision making processes that correspond to the [[OVN]] organizational model and its economic model. In other words, how the fruits of collaboration, the artifacts that we create, as well as the organization itself, evolve through p2p processes and interactions. Sometimes we need to make conscious decisions, weighing pros and cons of various alternatives (making individual and collective conscious choices). Other times, things evolve through emergent processes like [[stigmergy]], where every participant makes allocation decisions on what matters most in context, at a given time.
+Here we are more concerned with collective decision making processes that correspond to the [[OVN]] organizational model and its economic model. In other words, how the fruits of collaboration, the artifacts that we create, as well as the organization itself, evolve through p2p processes and interactions. Sometimes we need to make conscious decisions, weighing pros and cons of various alternatives (making individual and collective conscious choices). Other times, things evolve through emergent processes like [[stigmergy]], where every [[participant]] makes allocation decisions on what matters most in context, at a given time.
 ==Self-determination==
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 When it comes to technical decisions, averaging across everyone's opinion may not lead to the best outcome, since one educated voice can surpass the validity of everyone's voice.
-In some circumstances, participation in a decision making process can be seen as a privilege, a form of [[benefit]].
+In some circumstances, [[participation]] in a decision making process can be seen as a privilege, a form of [[benefit]].
 In sensitive cases, indiscriminate access to decision making can constitute a vector of attack.
 How can we think about distributing access to decisions making in an open network?
@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
-Third, we need to consider that OVNs are [[long-tail]] [[organizations]] (i.e. open) and are designed to harvest the edge of the network. In other words, all participants are by default considered as equal in potential (which is NOT to say that they all actualize their potential equally), since it is impossible sometimes to know who is lurking in the background and from where the best idea can emerge. Traditional organizations apply a filter at the entry (a selection process for employment, an interview) and assign individuals to specific roles that formally provide exclusive access to decision making. In these contexts, the decision making process can take many forms, but in the end, this selected group of individuals are empowered to cut through the debate, take responsibility for the process and are held accountable for the consequences of their decision. It is assumed that these individuals have the capacity to weigh all the costs and benefits, but this is not always the case, even if they consult more largely with other stakeholders.
+Third, we need to consider that OVNs are [[long-tail]] [[organizations]] (i.e. open) and are designed to harvest the edge of the network. In other words, all [[participants]] are by default considered as equal in potential (which is NOT to say that they all actualize their potential equally), since it is impossible sometimes to know who is lurking in the background and from where the best idea can emerge. Traditional organizations apply a filter at the entry (a selection process for employment, an interview) and assign individuals to specific roles that formally provide exclusive access to decision making. In these contexts, the decision making process can take many forms, but in the end, this selected group of individuals are empowered to cut through the debate, take responsibility for the process and are held accountable for the consequences of their decision. It is assumed that these individuals have the capacity to weigh all the costs and benefits, but this is not always the case, even if they consult more largely with other stakeholders.
-OVNs must have processes in place that can deal with the messy and noisy open participation, avoiding elitism.
+OVNs must have processes in place that can deal with the messy and noisy open [[participation]], avoiding elitism.
 In contrast to traditional firms, coops rely more on democratic decision making processes (a majority vote for example). In this case, the responsibility is shared and by the same token the accountability is diluted. Another perverse effect of this process is the averaging of opinions (lowest common denominator), which can be detrimental to technical decisions that require expertize. Thus, experts must incur the costs of educating and convincing the majority about the merits of their opinions / choices.
 In some settings a more restrictive democratic process is applied, including only specialists, which can be seen as a middle ground.
-Thus, OVNs must have processes in place that can effectively identify participants who have a higher probability of making a good decision and weed out those who don't have a clue or who have bad intentions.
+Thus, OVNs must have processes in place that can effectively identify [[participants]] who have a higher probability of making a good decision and weed out those who don't have a clue or who have bad intentions.
 This can be done by relying on the [[role]], [[reputation]] and the [[value system]].
 From an individual perspective, an OVN is an empowering environment, stimulating everyone to passionately contribute, in which good initiatives have a greater chance to be implemented, even if they arise on the “margins” of the network. [[Affiliates]] need to understand their roles and capacity in a [[processes]], and coordinate with their peers.
-From a collective perspective, every [[affiliate]] needs to understand not only every other [[affiliate]]'s [[role]] and capacity, but also the [[reputation]]. This leads to the concept of [[voluntary subordination]], in order to increase the potential of the group, to increase the probability of mutual [[benefits]], which binds all the participants together. Volontary subordination arises naturally (as part of the [[self organization]] process) if every participant understands the collaboration process, to allow the emergence of a set of positive incentives that drive every one's involvement.
+From a collective perspective, every [[affiliate]] needs to understand not only every other [[affiliate]]'s [[role]] and capacity, but also the [[reputation]]. This leads to the concept of [[voluntary subordination]], in order to increase the potential of the group, to increase the probability of mutual [[benefits]], which binds all the [[participants]] together. Voluntary subordination arises naturally (as part of the [[self organization]] process) if every [[participant]] understands the collaboration process, to allow the emergence of a set of positive incentives that drive every one's involvement.
@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 * Ability to fork and explore alternatives - [[Holochain]] allows forkability of entire infrastructure
-Wen it comes to forking, it is the responsibility of the initiator to rally support. If the initiator can do it alone the initiative cannot hurt the group, even if it does not represent a valuable [[contribution]] to the whole. Thus, decision making is transferred to every participant. Everyone makes an individual decision according to how benefits and costs are estimated at the individual level, taking into consideration the benefit of then group, which should constitute the basis of individual success. These individual decisions aggregate and influence each other within the open space. The initiative is given a chance to get started and its progressive and continuous implementation further influences other [[affiliate]]'s decisions. The collective decision making process becomes emergent and is constantly coupled to the initiative itself (the object of decision). If this new initiative produces good results more [[affiliate]]s will allocate [[resources]] for it, which fuels the initiative even more, and so on... That is what we mean by traction. Negative effects are also rapidly felt and propagate through the system, making bad initiatives short lived. Malicious actions or attacks are starved of resources and dealt with through the [[reputation system]]. The general advice is to NEVER spend energy killing new initiatives. Let them run and the good ones will get traction and will be implemented. The bad ones will be forgotten. This is NOT a perfect system, whatever that means! But it is one which solves the decision making problem in a value-based decentralized environment.
+Wen it comes to forking, it is the responsibility of the initiator to rally support. If the initiator can do it alone the initiative cannot hurt the group, even if it does not represent a valuable [[contribution]] to the whole. Thus, decision making is transferred to every [[participant]]. Everyone makes an individual decision according to how benefits and costs are estimated at the individual level, taking into consideration the benefit of then group, which should constitute the basis of individual success. These individual decisions aggregate and influence each other within the open space. The initiative is given a chance to get started and its progressive and continuous implementation further influences other [[affiliate]]'s decisions. The collective decision making process becomes emergent and is constantly coupled to the initiative itself (the object of decision). If this new initiative produces good results more [[affiliate]]s will allocate [[resources]] for it, which fuels the initiative even more, and so on... That is what we mean by traction. Negative effects are also rapidly felt and propagate through the system, making bad initiatives short lived. Malicious actions or attacks are starved of resources and dealt with through the [[reputation system]]. The general advice is to NEVER spend energy killing new initiatives. Let them run and the good ones will get traction and will be implemented. The bad ones will be forgotten. This is NOT a perfect system, whatever that means! But it is one which solves the decision making problem in a value-based decentralized environment.
-What if everyone starts implementing initiatives, wouldn’t that de-focus the group’s activities and stretch thin its [[resources]]? Well, if the [value system]] is transparent and if communication flows well, most participants should realize how to get to the rewards in the most effective way. This alignment process may take some time though, which depends on the effectiveness of [[feedback mechanisms]].  The individual choices of participants with higher [[reputation]] will have an impact on other participants, this is how skills, talent and capacity are included into this process. Some participants will still get it wrong and adopt a bad initiative, but if the OVN is well structured most of them will not. We assume that the aggregated costs are lower than a bad decision made by an elite in a corporate environment.
+What if everyone starts implementing initiatives, wouldn’t that de-focus the group’s activities and stretch thin its [[resources]]? Well, if the [value system]] is transparent and if communication flows well, most [[participants]] should realize how to get to the rewards in the most effective way. This alignment process may take some time though, which depends on the effectiveness of [[feedback mechanisms]].  The individual choices of [[participants]] with higher [[reputation]] will have an impact on other [[participants]], this is how skills, talent and capacity are included into this process. Some [[participants]] will still get it wrong and adopt a bad initiative, but if the OVN is well structured most of them will not. We assume that the aggregated costs are lower than a bad decision made by an elite in a corporate environment.
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
-Another observation from the [[Sensorica]] experience is that open [[ventures]] should have two diffuse layers, a very pragmatic core, composed of goal-driven individuals, and an outer layer composed of passionate, idealistic, fun seeking individuals. For a revenue-driven open [[venture]] we can say that we have a market and a gift economy intertwined. The [[value system]] needs to be conceived in such a way to avoid conflict between these two classes of [[affiliates]], participating on the extremes of these two types of economies, within the network. In other words, the revenue-driven [[affiliates]] should have no business putting pressure on passion-driven participants, or vice versa, because both types of [[affiliates]] are necessary to increase the potential of the [[venture]].
+Another observation from the [[Sensorica]] experience is that open [[ventures]] should have two diffuse layers, a very pragmatic core, composed of goal-driven individuals, and an outer layer composed of passionate, idealistic, fun seeking individuals. For a revenue-driven open [[venture]] we can say that we have a market and a gift economy intertwined. The [[value system]] needs to be conceived in such a way to avoid conflict between these two classes of [[affiliates]], [[participating]] on the extremes of these two types of economies, within the network. In other words, the revenue-driven [[affiliates]] should have no business putting pressure on passion-driven [[participants]], or vice versa, because both types of [[affiliates]] are necessary to increase the potential of the [[venture]].
@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 In this section we discuss tools that can be applied to various decision making types within OVNs.
-Decisions amongst a group of stakeholders can be reached through many different participatory mechanisms. Most familiar is "majority rules" yes/no voting. Other systems like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making Consensus] encourage deeper inquiry and alignment to reach agreement from all [[affiliates]].
+Decisions amongst a group of stakeholders can be reached through many different [[participatory]] mechanisms. Most familiar is "majority rules" yes/no voting. Other systems like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making Consensus] encourage deeper inquiry and alignment to reach agreement from all [[affiliates]].
 A comparison of different types: http://socialcompare.com/en/comparison/decision-making-tools

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:27, 4 January 2024
Line 102:		Line 102:


−	What if everyone starts implementing initiatives, wouldn’t that de-focus the group’s activities and stretch thin its [[resources]]? Well, if the [value system]] is transparent and if communication flows well, most participants ~~will~~ realize how to get to the rewards in the most effective way. This alignment process may take some time though, which depends on the effectiveness of [[feedback mechanisms]]. The individual choices of participants with higher [[reputation]] will have an impact on other participants~~. This~~ is how skills, talent and capacity are included into this process. Some participants will still get it wrong and adopt a bad initiative, but most of them will not. We assume that the aggregated costs are lower than a bad decision made by an elite in a corporate environment.	+	What if everyone starts implementing initiatives, wouldn’t that de-focus the group’s activities and stretch thin its [[resources]]? Well, if the [value system]] is transparent and if communication flows well, most participants should realize how to get to the rewards in the most effective way. This alignment process may take some time though, which depends on the effectiveness of [[feedback mechanisms]]. The individual choices of participants with higher [[reputation]] will have an impact on other participants, this is how skills, talent and capacity are included into this process. Some participants will still get it wrong and adopt a bad initiative, but if the OVN is well structured most of them will not. We assume that the aggregated costs are lower than a bad decision made by an elite in a corporate environment.


−	Another observation from the [[Sensorica]] is that open [[ventures]] should have two diffuse layers, a very pragmatic core, composed of goal-driven individuals, and an outer layer composed of passionate, idealistic, fun seeking individuals. For a revenue-driven open [[venture]] we can say that we have a market and a gift economy intertwined. The [[value system]] needs to be conceived in such a way to avoid conflict between these two classes of [[affiliates]], participating on the extremes of these two types of economies, within the network. In other words, the revenue-driven [[affiliates]] should have no business putting pressure on passion-driven participants, or vice versa, because both types of [[affiliates]] are necessary to increase the potential of the [[venture]].	+	[[DAOs]] grapple with the problem of [[resource]] allocation as transfer of tokens from a shared pool (or treasury) to various projects. Most of them use proposals and onchain voting mechanisms to transfer funds to various initiatives. This problem is in fact self-induced by pulling tokens into a shared wallet, the pool, instead of using a [[crowdfunding]] pattern, effectively [[crowdsourcing]] the allocation problem, which is more compatible with stigmergic processes.
		+
		+
		+	Within [[Sensorica]], some ventures also had to work with shared accounts, usually held in trust by a [[Custodian]], containing funds from grants or partners. The allocation scheme in this case replies more on [[planning]] and ongoing self organization, using the [[NRP-CAS]] not on explicit group decisions like in [[DAOs]], based on proposals. Sensoricans have reported very few problems with this process. Moreover, Sensorica's economic model relies heavily on [[crowdsourcing]] at every level, drastically reducing reliance on monetary currency.
		+
		+
		+	Another observation from the [[Sensorica]] experience is that open [[ventures]] should have two diffuse layers, a very pragmatic core, composed of goal-driven individuals, and an outer layer composed of passionate, idealistic, fun seeking individuals. For a revenue-driven open [[venture]] we can say that we have a market and a gift economy intertwined. The [[value system]] needs to be conceived in such a way to avoid conflict between these two classes of [[affiliates]], participating on the extremes of these two types of economies, within the network. In other words, the revenue-driven [[affiliates]] should have no business putting pressure on passion-driven participants, or vice versa, because both types of [[affiliates]] are necessary to increase the potential of the [[venture]].

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 ==metamaps.cc==
-Based on spheres of activity and impact, decisions are addressed within the appropriate ''membrane'' through a process of awareness, coordination, informing, and feedback. A recipe book of "governance patterns" is in development to support swift and adaptable configuration of decision making framework.
+Based on spheres of activity and impact, decisions are addressed within the appropriate ''membrane'' through a process of awareness, coordination, informing, and feedback.
-These patterns include:
+Some  "governance patterns"  to support swift and adaptable configuration of decision making framework.include:
 * '''Sphere of activity''': project or intention space (membrane)

@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 Some important docs
 * [http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1qDEriDjEO2y5zH7ukkE5PaGZLr3Ysf-_XgiiM0NW8XE Normative system]
-* [http://docs.google.com/document/d/1ukADSYqMntWLAi4Q1tmrccNtFQcP8DT8xL0aoum4Oc0/edit?hl=en#Decision Making for an open enterprise doc]
+* [http://docs.google.com/document/d/1ukADSYqMntWLAi4Q1tmrccNtFQcP8DT8xL0aoum4Oc0/edit?hl=en#Decision Decision Making for an open enterprise doc]
 * [https://groups.diigo.com/group/sensorica-knowledge/content/tag/governance Governance] and [https://groups.diigo.com/group/sensorica-knowledge/content/tag/decision%20making decision making] on Diigo