If I’m reading Patrick’s comment correctly, there are two different ideas going on:
The democratic approach requires greater overhead (e.g., “the overhead for organizing a general assembly”) without producing better results to justify the extra overhead
Fewer / geographically broader orgs would have greater efficiency for ~the usual reasons we might think larger orgs might do better than smaller ones
These effects should be, in theory, somewhat separate—one could envision a nationally focused org without membership/democracy, or a big transnational group with it. Do you think your list of advantages is more about localness or more about being democratic?
There’s something about a prior on having democratic decision making as part of this because it allows for better community engagement usually? Representation often leads to feelings of inclusion and whilst I’ve only dabbled in the sociology here it seems like the option of saying no is quite important for members to feel heard?
My guess would be that the main pros of having democratic deliberation doesn’t come from when the going is normal but rather as a resillience mechanism? Democracies tend to react late to major changes and not change path often but when they do they do it properly? (I think this statement is true but it might as well be a cultural myth that I’ve heard in the social choice adjacent community.)
My guess would be that the main pros of having democratic deliberation doesn’t come from when the going is normal but rather as a resillience mechanism?
Perhaps, but I can also imagine that a hand-selected nonprofit board may be able to spot risks and react to them better than a board voted in an assembly. The coordination function of an assembly in trying to fill specific board roles seems lower than if a smaller group of existing board members can discuss it.
Yeah, I think you’re right and I also believe that it can be a both and?
You can have a general non-profit board and at the same time have a form of representative democracy going on which seems the best we can currently do for this?
I think it is fundamentally about a more timeless trade-off between hierarchical organisations that generally are able to act with more “commander’s intent” versus democratic models that are more of a flat voting model. The democratic models suffer when there is a lot of single person linear thinking involved but do well at providing direct information for what people care about whilst the inverse is true for the hierarchical one and the project of good governance is to some extent somewhere in between.
I can see democratic models providing value, but the practical implementation is tricky. I can only speak from my experience in EA Germany, where member engagement in national-level strategy and participation in the national community seemed much lower than what I experience on the international level (in this forum, for example) or even at the city level at times.
I would be more excited about either local structures (cities or small regions with fewer than 10 million people) or larger structures (sub-continents, professional groups, etc.) where people truly form a community in the sense that they see each other in person, or where there is a large enough body to allow for meaningful participation in democratic processes.
If I’m reading Patrick’s comment correctly, there are two different ideas going on:
The democratic approach requires greater overhead (e.g., “the overhead for organizing a general assembly”) without producing better results to justify the extra overhead
Fewer / geographically broader orgs would have greater efficiency for ~the usual reasons we might think larger orgs might do better than smaller ones
These effects should be, in theory, somewhat separate—one could envision a nationally focused org without membership/democracy, or a big transnational group with it. Do you think your list of advantages is more about localness or more about being democratic?
I like that decomposition.
There’s something about a prior on having democratic decision making as part of this because it allows for better community engagement usually? Representation often leads to feelings of inclusion and whilst I’ve only dabbled in the sociology here it seems like the option of saying no is quite important for members to feel heard?
My guess would be that the main pros of having democratic deliberation doesn’t come from when the going is normal but rather as a resillience mechanism? Democracies tend to react late to major changes and not change path often but when they do they do it properly? (I think this statement is true but it might as well be a cultural myth that I’ve heard in the social choice adjacent community.)
Perhaps, but I can also imagine that a hand-selected nonprofit board may be able to spot risks and react to them better than a board voted in an assembly. The coordination function of an assembly in trying to fill specific board roles seems lower than if a smaller group of existing board members can discuss it.
Yeah, I think you’re right and I also believe that it can be a both and?
You can have a general non-profit board and at the same time have a form of representative democracy going on which seems the best we can currently do for this?
I think it is fundamentally about a more timeless trade-off between hierarchical organisations that generally are able to act with more “commander’s intent” versus democratic models that are more of a flat voting model. The democratic models suffer when there is a lot of single person linear thinking involved but do well at providing direct information for what people care about whilst the inverse is true for the hierarchical one and the project of good governance is to some extent somewhere in between.
I can see democratic models providing value, but the practical implementation is tricky. I can only speak from my experience in EA Germany, where member engagement in national-level strategy and participation in the national community seemed much lower than what I experience on the international level (in this forum, for example) or even at the city level at times.
I would be more excited about either local structures (cities or small regions with fewer than 10 million people) or larger structures (sub-continents, professional groups, etc.) where people truly form a community in the sense that they see each other in person, or where there is a large enough body to allow for meaningful participation in democratic processes.