1/ For community cohesion (a key for networks to stay together and not splinter), clarity & inclusion around the *decision-making-process* is just as important as the decisions that are ultimately made.
2/ People within communities will always disagree "at the margin" of a decision as we all have slightly different value systems.

But if people agree a *decision-making-process* was fair, then even if they disagree with a single decision, they'll stay as part of the group.
3/ If, on the other hand, people disagree with the decision-making-process, and don't believe it's remediable, then the community has a big problem.
4/ Systemic disagreement in the decision-making-process (with no path to remediation), means that community will ultimately lose faith that any future decisions will be legitimately made.
5/ Decisions around evolving software-based-networks are always going to have to be made, and whether explicit or implicit, there will always be a customary decision-making-process.
6/ It's my view that having a transparent & inclusive *decision-making-process* will keep networks robust and evolving the longest.

This may not be necessary for every network, but it will be for most (governance by defection can work in extreme, antagonistic use-cases).
7/ Sidenote: Everyone can be involved in "read-only" & "light contribution" mode, with a subset of those participants being able to "write decisions" (the ones that have earned the right).

This involves everyone, while avoiding paralysis in execution of decision-making.
8/ Open, and ideally immutable forums (see Politeia: https://proposals.decred.org/ ), which show the entire history of a network's decision-making-process and the decisions that were made, are a fundamental building block to setting up a legitimate "writing process."
You can follow @cburniske.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: