Funding governance filtering

funding_governance_filtering.json

https://arbital.com/p/funding_governance_filtering

by Eric Bruylant Nov 29 2016

Current-best guess at how these parts of organization will happen.

Funding

Eric provided initial funding, with contributions from EA philanthropists and organizations allowing more flexibility and faster setup time. Shares of the project were offered during crowdfunding. These are transferable and can be used to pay rent (at a discount rate, to incentivize early contribution).

Governance

One dictator who appoints other localized dictators, ability to make decisions without red tape or meetings, and personal responsibility for projects. Provision for removing the primary dictator via a majority shares and/or long term residents vote of no confidence.

Filtering

Open to visits (~1 week) by anyone who a current resident agrees to be the contact point for or high-status person / organization recommends. Short term residents have video calls or other interviews to gauge their compatibility and goals. Long-term residents can veto people they expect to be significantly net-negative.

Comments

Mars (person)

Open to visits \(~1 week\) by anyone who a current resident agrees to be the contact point for or high\-status person / organization recommends\. Short term residents have video calls or other interviews to gauge their compatibility and goals\. Long\-term residents can veto people they expect to be significantly net\-negative\.

I would very much encourage the norm here to be, "If you feel the need to veto something, explicitly start a double-crux."

Any time a veto happens, this inherently means there is a disagreement that hasn't been resolved. The bottleneck for Double Crux (CX²) seems to be "explicitly identifying moments in-the-moment where it would be good to use CX²". Veto situations are an ideal moment.