On Interim consensus protocol for Fractal democracy systems

This is a reply to the Interim Consensus Protocol proposed by Dan on his post here

Regarding who makes proposals:

As I said in the meeting in which Dan's proposed new Interim Consensus Protocol was presented, average level 6 for just making a proposal is way too high.

The right to present a proposal should be based on several factors, two of them being knowledge of the network and capacity to predict community consensus. These variables are more correlated with attendance than with level attained. Level itself is affected by other factors such as team association and native language.

I remember Dan answering that it is impossible to have a high average level without being a regular attendant; that's true. However, the converse is false: It's possible to have a high attendance and not being ranked at or above level 6.

On the other hand, according to data (Figure 8) accuracy to predict the consensus of the whole network is correlated with attendance.

So I'd propose the following formula:

Decision_Power = (average_level_from_last_N_meetings) x Ln (number_of_meetings_attended)

Where Ln stands for natural logarithm and N is a parameter to be chosen.

Then the fraction of the community with the highest X percent of decision power, where X is an adjustable parameter, can make proposals.

Regarding who decides whether to accept a proposal

The decision of approval should not necessarily be done within a 1 hour interval in any week. But discussed within that interval then voted in the hive post during a week. This allow members of the council who didn't attend the first meeting and reduces the probability of not reaching consensus. Also, members of the consensus should, in my opinion, be the ones with the highest decision power according to the above formula.

Finally, if after the posting week the council fails to reach consensus, they all lose the respect from last week. Then a new council is formed and the whole process starts again.