The finality of a policy or governance system should limited to providing the framework of facilities which are necessary to produce, maintain, archive information and to perform a series of collective operations on the data itself, with the aim of producing valuable end products in form of law, rules, documentation, or change to the system itself.
A system can be considered neutral when it contains no assumptions nor incentive to the user to the way he should decide to use it.
As an example, a group might decide that the most effective way for that group to operate is to perform their voting session with a time limit of seven days, with no quorum and with a minimum number of votes of 20 percent of the population.
Another group would consider the above configuration inefficient for their purposes and would rather orient their process to have a quorum of fifty percent plus one voters abd a second stage ballot in case of the quorum quota not being met.
These examples will probably be sufficient to stimulate a debate and invite you to come with an even better configuration.
The point is that such level of logic can be considered of ‘secondary level’, compared to the very constant underlying concepts of vote, proposal or process.
Once observed that there are at least two level of logics, it is possible to proceed implemeting a truly neutral sytem.
You could imagine that a relatively small number of strong and abstract concept could constitute the core of the solution and serves the fundamental purposes required by no matter what process configuration, we can call this the system kernel or core.
Once the core system is made availablr, one or more configurations could be prepared and offered as a starting point for a community.
Whether or not this configuration is ‘perfect’ for that community is not really a problem, since they will be able to alter their configuration at any time by the very use of their platform.
In fact, in the exact same way as a group decides for any proposal produced within the system, the individuals in the group should be able to propose, vote and change their voting process for example, defining in their own way what the ‘right’ solution is.
The kernel does not enforce ‘right’ or ‘democratic’ or ‘specialised’ solutions, rather it provides the flexibility to adapt to whatever the group wants it to be.