Proposal: OpenLibra as a Movement and Network of Experiments

This proposal is a proposal to create a meta-framework that allows us to have many governance experiments in a non-hierarchical network, instead of putting all eggs in a single basket.


# Terms

“original proposal”: The proposal here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SW8pWj3WaPmSNO2pSFx_pyLrwSXM_ty4pMmanX7aD4o

“Lane’s proposal for checks and balances”: The proposal here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vK8ndDPpKyf1z6wzBEQ81h_-4U8H1jL3OnitzfyF_2k/edit

“Naol’s proposal for democracy (using Loomio/Keybase)”: The proposal here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hpdRliGwovpFi5maqtqFXOwsFmQyFci_YfAyJ4ZkP-g/edit

“Virgo”: Another response to Libra that started when OpenLibra started.  Virgo agrees with the OpenLibra manifesto, but also believes that the response to Libra must include more than creating an open version of Libra.

“openlibra.io community”: This (sub)community which controls openlibra.io and original discord as resources of this community; which is separate from the “Virgo/OpenLibra” community, but initially includes the same 25 voting members.

“Virgo/OpenLibra community”: A new (sub)community with the same 25 voting members but where future decisions are made according to different processes.

“(sub)community”: used to refer to a community running a specific experiment or set of experiments.

“OpenLibra movement”: All (sub)communities focused on developing a response to Libra, not only by creating an alternative platform or stablecoin to Libra, but also all dependencies as well, such as an open-source alternative to Facebook.


# Justification

I’d rather we have at least one pure democratic experiment of all participants, rather than anything that decides on token details at this time.  We can always figure out tokens etc later IMO.  In this way, I’m in agreement with Naol’s proposal for democracy (using Loomio/Keybase), but I’d want to punt any decisions on specific tools like Loomio or Keybase until later.  I support Keybase in theory but I don’t support their closed-source server & data silo monopoly, which may be abused just the same as Facebook in the future.  I think proposals to use specific tools should be decided in the future as separate proposals.

The original gov proposal is an experiment where the initial token distribution has too much power in deciding the direction of Openlibra.  Also, while the “stewards” are likely a very legitimate group of individuals, it doesn’t include people like myself who have/will/are contribut(ed/e/ing) to openlibra.  (I am a member of the ICF and it was originally my (and Ethan’s approval) decision to support openlibra.io by funding for “movemint”.)

Any singular experiment can fail.  If instead we can create a network of experiments with certain reachability/visibility guarantees of all the related experiments, then everyone who agrees to the manifesto can participate.

The antidote to Libra is not an alternative chain, not even an alternative stablecoin or platform, but something that is fundamentally based on people -- democracy and networked (sub)communities.  IMO it should specifically *not* be about tokens, though some experiments can include tokens.

The counter to Libra should also include initiatives to create an alternative to Facebook that is composed of a network of open source social networks; for otherwise democracy itself is compromised globally.

We saw Cambridge Analytica leading to Trump.  Well, Facebook is now facing an existential crisis, for Bernie Sanders and other politicians are pushing for antitrust litigation against Facebook.  See how Facebook has recently whitelisted Breitbart as a trusted news source in preparation for the next election cycle.

I think Libra is awful and want to make sure I support an OpenLibra experiment that will never peg to Libra.

I want to participate in an OpenLibra experiment that is radically transparent, and my standards for transparency and accountability will be different than that of other members, because radical transparency is difficult and counter-intuitive.

I don’t want to commit to and contribute to OpenLibra as a brand when it will be tied to a single governance experiment or (sub)community that may fail and due to  political fragmentation.  I want to enable all experiments and accommodate our diversity of opinion, as Iftherios had mentioned.


# Proposal

Make OpenLibra an umbrella brand for the movement itself that agrees with the manifesto.  This way, OpenLibra is not tied to any singular experiment/(sub)community or control structure.

Have “openlibra.io” be a specific governance experiment/(sub)community of OpenLibra.  But also enable Virgo/OpenLibra to be an experiment in pure (liquid?) democracy.  Both (sub)communities must agree to the proposed canonical OpenLibra manifesto.

(As you can see in virgo.org, I support checks and balances, as in Lane’s proposal for checks and balances.  The “executive” is executive.  The “board” is legislative.  The “court” is judicial.  While there are differences, I’d love to help enable that kind of rich structure and help enforce it.  Would love to continue working on the Virgo manifesto with Lane, and/or to vote on Lane’s proposal within the Virgo/OpenLibra (sub)community.)

Amend the canonical OpenLibra manifesto with a trailing section that includes the spirit of this proposal -- specifically to enable a network of many (sub)communities that are associated voluntarily.

Both “openlibra.io” and Virgo/OpenLibra agree to link prominently to each other.  This linking of (sub)communities is quasi-permanent -- it can be broken if and only if either (sub)community decides via a ⅔ supermajority (or if this fraction is not applicable, such strong equivalent that is significantly stronger than ½) to sever the link.

(Prominent means linking prominently in all major communication mediums as well as the website, like a footer of the website, or the header of the website if the footer would not be prominent, such as infinite scroll sites; or the sidebar of there are too many links to other (sub)communities)

Other OpenLibra (sub)communities can also link to “openlibra.io” or Virgo/OpenLibra voluntarily, as agreed between the two communities according to their respective governance processes (without requiring a ⅔ supermajority, but simply the default/common condition for making a decision) as long as they agree to the original manifesto.

The “openlibra.io” (sub)community will be defined by a secondary vote which chooses among the remaining gov proposals, which includes the original proposal as well as all other proposals except this one.

The Virgo/OpenLibra (sub)community will be defined by a governance mechanism that initially includes all members who are allowed to vote on this or the original proposal. Thereafter, all decisions will be considered accepted and ratified if it follows this process:

The voting period is 2 weeks, after announcement in forum.virgo.org/openlibra (or equivalent) and notified in any official communication platforms/channels.
Members can vote yes, no, or abstain.
After the 2 weeks, the quorum of members who voted is at least 40% of the voting members.  If the quorum is not met, the quorum becomes 30% after another week, and 20% after another week, and finally 10% after another week.
The proposal is accepted and ratified if more than 50% of the non-abstaining voting members vote yes.
The proposal is accepted and ratified with ⅔ supermajority if more than ⅔ of the non-abstaining voting members vote yes.  This is used for breaking links to other OpenLibra (sub)communities.

The owner of openlibra.io and whoever first used “OpenLibra” as a word mark (Lucas, but any others?) all sign a written agreement to not enforce any trademarks in any jurisdiction for the mark “OpenLibra”, such that the USPTO or other trademark office or jurisdiction does not become the failure point for this movement, allowing us to fully commit to the brand “OpenLibra”.

This makes OpenLibra a truly open movement where anyone can move around and discover new (sub)communities/experiments.  This in turn lets everyone promote the brand, OpenLibra, knowing that the movement will not be captured by any subset of those who agree with the manifesto.

The more such links we make, the exponentially more resilient this movement becomes to capture or failure, because any particular OpenLibra (sub)community will be reachable from any other OpenLibra (sub)community as long as not all linked OpenLibra (sub)communities agree to exclude that particular OpenLibra (sub)community.  In other words, we get to ensure that all (or almost all) OpenLibra experiments are discoverable.  We get to conduct more rapid experiments because failure of one experiment does not jeopardize the movement itself -- since the brand OpenLibra does not exclude other successful experiments.

Jae Kwon