We need to develop tools and theory to facilitate that. Wikipedia's online governance model is completely vulnerable to attack to the point that it's almost sha

We need to develop tools and theory to facilitate that. Wikipedia's online governance model is completely vulnerable to attack to the point that it's almost shaped by attackers. Not a lot of good online models of governance even exist outside of Debian. It's a hard problem, which is why real-life protocols like Robert's Rules of Order are so large and complicated when their aims seem very simple: to allow a group of people to agree on a course of action. edit: Community Notes and other (open) algorithmic governance that is designed to withstand certain classes of attack are clearly an advance over simple voting systems. Robert's Rules use overlapping votes within votes within debates of motions, repeals, and amendments. The structure of every RR vote is determined by a mechanical classification of the thing being voted on, including the amount and type of notice that has to be given before the vote, and whether representatives of general membership get to vote, majority or 2/3rds vote/majority-of-membership, etc. I think we should start from there, and take advantage of the fact that meetings can be distributed, continuous, and concurrent online to simplify them. RR is the way it is because they all met in one place to talk about the same thing at the same time, and didn't have the internet or any of our cool devices.