Here we present our best knowledge about decision making processes that are compatible with open networks (OVNs), as well as praxis, or how decision making is implemented or used in an OVN, or open ventures.

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 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 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.

Self-determination

Making a decision is making a choice. Decision making presupposes free will of the individuals involved in an individual or a collective decision process, however the choice may or may not be free of influence. For example, the election process, collective decision (actors are all citizens who vote) by an entire nation, is not free from influence. The opinions of voters (actors) are heavily manipulated by propaganda from different sides. Although we can never dissociate a decision making process from peer influence, in an OVN environment the culture is one of individual sovereignty or freedom, with a lot of room form self-determination. That is substantiated by the fact that OVNs or open ventures are opt in organizations, i.e. affiliates are free to join and leave at will. In other words, the only thing that keeps someone around is a perception of individual benefit (tangible or not), a purpose for which the organization serves as a conduit, an important need (the sense of belonging for example), or any other type of intrinsic motivation. We call all this an experience of value. But one's perception can be influenced by others or by the environment. We strive to minimize influence by designing the organization in such a way that self-determination can be maximally expressed.

Having said that, we also need to consider that p2p is understood as a synthesis of libertarianism and communism, two extremes that oppose individualism to communitarianism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty. This, the concept of self-determination in p2p supposes a concern for the community around, as the individual and its community (social relations) are inseparable. Within the p2p framework one cannot conceive an individual in abstraction of its social relations. Success for an individual evolving within an organization cannot be conceived without the success of the organization, which provides the infrastructure, access to much needed resources and collaborators (skills and morel support).

Degree of certainty

A decision is NOT choosing among different outcomes, because there could be risk involved, i.e. a suspected outcome is not 100% probable. The choice can be made knowing with certainty the outcome of some or all possible actions, or can be made in absence of certainty. For the second case, the outcome can be negative, positive, or neutral, which will affect the decision making process.

Random or analysis

Making a choice also implies some knowledge about the situation. 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

A decision making process has actors (individuals involved in the decision making process) and scope (the group of individuals that are affected by the choice).

Some decisions only concern the actor: what I will eat for dinner.
Some decisions only affect others: the policeman to give or not to give a ticket
Some decisions that involve a very few actors can have a broad scope with important consequences: a tyrannical regime, but also representative democracies
Some decisions involve the entire society and have a society-wide scope: a referendum, presidential election (which is influenced - see below)

Access to decision making

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 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?

Kurt advocates a governance equation which automates access to group decision making processes.

Distinctions

making up one’s mind, according to a set of criteria and implementation, which can be done in various ways, is not a decision per say, if it is not enacted. Some decisions become effective as soon as they are uttered (ex. the decision of a judge). Others need complex actions to be enacted, implemented or become effective. Thus, we need to make a distinction between having made one's mind or reaches a consensus and having made a decision, which is an individual or collective commitment to take the proper action for implementation. The decision will be ultimately evaluated based on its impact in the real world, and that depends not only on the decision itself, but also on its implementation. Thus, a group can make a good decision and do a poor implementation, leading to undesired outcomes.

reversible decisions (ex. getting married) and irreversible decisions (ex. commit suicide). Reversibility can be only partial, because decisions have consequences that cannot be reversed, as we cannot reverse time (ex. after a divorce- the reverse decision to getting married, the family estate gets divided). Irreversible decisions carry a higher burden for those involved, higher responsibility must be applied, access to decision making must also be well considered.

Subject

Refers to the thing on which the decision is made.

Examples

allocation of resources - some type of resource
modifying the governance - some norms
exclusion of an affiliate (a member)

Types of decisions

See Sensorica's doc about decision making

Praxis

Sensorica

Implemented by Tiberius Brastaviceanu during the early days of Sensorica, influenced by discussions with other Sensorica affiliates and observers see original document on Decision making.

A space for suggestions was created, where members could propose something new, discuss and rate different opinions. The implementation was a Google Moderator embedded in a webpage on SENSORICA's website.

This was used a bit in the beginning (2011, 2012) but not very much afterwards. A lot of propositions and discussions were carried out on Sensorica's general mailing list. Some discussions were carried out on G+, very few on Facebook.

A space for decision making was created where issues were presented and decisions ware made by voting. This space is a webpage on Sensorica's website, using an announcements template, and voting was implemented using Google forms enbedded on this page.

Only a few decisions have been made. The data was recorded in a folder on SENSORICA's database (Google Drive) named Decisions forms. Affiliates also had the option to subscribe to page changes or announcements to get an email every time a new decision is published on the decision page.

Decisions were also announced on the Working space, page as well as on SENSORICA's general mailing list.

In April 2014 Tibi proposed the Fluid P2P Governance

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.

These patterns include:

Sphere of activity: project or intention space (membrane)
Scope of activity: range limits of governance (time, type, overrulings)
Required capacities: skill sets or contribution types relevant to sphere
Allocation strategy: how are tasks and needs described and fulfilled in sphere

setting collective targets - via workgroup, deputies, or network
identifying crucial needs - via workgroup, deputies, or network
gathering proposals (open space style)
entering into contracts (enterprise mode)
posing agreements (non-dominium)
individual initiative (free agency)

Collaborative framework: nature of engagement and value creation in sphere

open participation / free flow
designated team / membrane
designated roles / accountabilities
private work tracks

Decision-making framework: default mode for collective sensing and resolution

self-determining - autonomous, within basic network guidelines
subsidiary - subject to an encompassing body or governing board
counseled - subject to formal response from peer body or board
executive - subject to express determinations from an exec role
network - subject to ongoing adjustment by network input

Governance around decision framework: self-organization and/or oversight
Coordination/Informing Process: transparency and publication / synchronization

realtime visibility
scheduled updates
dedicated liaison
indeterminate

Feedback Process: response and adjustments by peers during implementation
Execution Process: key permissions, accountabilities, metrics
Feedback Process: response, rating, reputation following results

public comment threads
p2p interaction on record
scheduled open hearings
formal rating system (per result)
formal reputation system (per participant)

Decision Types and Tools

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 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

Decision making

Contents