Conditions of Satisfaction For System Of Governance

The acceptance test any proposed system of governance must pass: a coherent philosophy, sound theory under every element, concrete mechanisms — and nine things the three together must actually do.

Most governance proposals are argued on whether they are appealing. This page asks instead whether they are acceptable, and sets the test in advance, which is the only time a test is honest.

Three levels must all be present. A coherent and uniting philosophy with design principles behind it — otherwise the parts will not compose. Sound theory behind each element — otherwise a good-looking whole rests on mechanisms nobody has thought through. Concrete techniques and mechanisms that put the theory into practice — otherwise it is a philosophy with a governance-shaped hole in it. A proposal that has two of the three fails; the failure mode of most political thought is the missing third, and the failure mode of most software is the missing first.

The three together are then held to nine requirements. They must serve the overarching and uniting highest mission and goal; uphold timeless wisdom, principles, and values through clear and wise mechanisms rather than good intentions; encourage just and beneficial participation among members; establish Right Relationship among all participants; protect both Values and Value for past, present, and future generations (Covenant Across Time); provide a template that can be instantiated across cultures, times, locales, legal systems, and organisational forms (Instantiation · General Pattern, Specific Application); enable sharing of resources, knowledge, and skill across every conforming instance (Minimum standards of interoperability); cultivate multi-generational mentoring and servant leadership (Wise Eldership · Servant Leadership); and bring the practices of every part of the community into alignment with its own highest purpose (Alignment · Drift).

The list is load-bearing precisely because it is written down before any particular system is judged by it — including the canon's own. A body that publishes its acceptance criteria can be told it has failed them.

This is a different concept from the delivery sense of Conditions of satisfaction, where a receiver states what a piece of work must do before it will be accepted. Two senses, one phrase; this is the systems-acceptance one.

Also called: the governance acceptance test · the three levels and the nine Stands on: Conditions of satisfaction · Governance · Philosophy · Design To The Goal Opens onto: The LIØNSBERG Constitution · The Constitutional Recognitions · HoloFractal Governance · Mandala of Governance · Democratic Self-Governance Through Shared Agreements and Wise Eldership · Minimum standards of interoperability · Instantiation · Covenant Across Time · Wise Eldership · Servant Leadership · Right Relationship · The interoperability test In play: beyond — applied to a proposal, including our own, before it is adopted anywhere Sources: Conditions of Satisfaction For System Of Governance (root page, draft, nineteen lines; a chapter of The LIØNSBERG Handbook) · 3.1 The Function of Governance (draft) · lionsberg.wiki: Conditions of Satisfaction For System Of Governance Open: The canon's own system has never been publicly scored against these nine, though the list makes it possible. · The delivery sense and the systems-acceptance sense share a name in the Field; a reviewer should decide whether they are one concept at two scales or two concepts that collided.