Lifecycle of a rule

When we think about policy management, most of the attention goes to the idea of creating new laws or policies.

What is to be noted though is that the life cycle of a rule is much longer than the simple definition and introduction of a rule.

Decisions and rules determined in the past remain valid indefinitely and keep producing their effects on the group, whether the individuals are aware of that or not.

Furthermore, a decision of the past, when the reasons justifying it are no longer present in memory of the population or when they are not clearly expressed in the rationale of a law, might cause the loss of control of the law itself, whereas the group no longer ‘owns’ or controls a rule, but rather the rule impinges on it without a clear understanding of why things are that way.

Hence you might conclude that past decisions have a great importance and require appropriate attention to ensure they don’t slip out of control of the group and become obsolete, impractical, undesirable or even harmful for the group.

From this there are a number of requirements emerging and making part of the core of the solution model.

Features required include:

The decisions are archived and kept stored indefinitely, with all their related information of debate, amendment, vote attached. No data is lost.

The data have to be searchable and be categorised in an efficient manner so that particles of data are logically connected to each other.

The system should allow for proposal of amendments to any law or rule at any stage of its lifecycle. No rule is ‘final’ or ‘immutable’.

The system should possibly help and avoid the introduction of conflicting or duplicate laws.

The system should encourage the input of background or context or statistical information justifying the introduction of the rule itself. This requirement is also needed for implementing metrics and performance, which is a large enough aspect needing a dedicated post by itself.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What if we do, what if we don’t ?

The question is always valid and should continously be asked while we proceed into this exercise as it proofs the validity of the goals we have set and the solution elaborated so far.

Where would we be if we had implemented this solution in a group where we belong? Would we be happy, would we feel in control of the group, would there be more cohesion? Will the interest of the majority be prevailing over the interests of the traditionally dominating rich class? Will there be freedom and ability to participate for all no matter their level of competence or education or political view?

Checks and balances are to be applied at every step we take to ensure we maintain a truly open and neutral position, effectively capable of reaching the acceptance by the people at large.

On the other hand we could consider it all wrong and step back and decide that after all the traditional ways are there since millenia, they must be the perfect evolution of what human life can conceive at this moment in time.

It is up to the visionary to decide for the unhortodox solutions, on him you can count as the most valuable bearer of real evolution and innovation, that is the only tradition he will be bring forward.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


People appear to have very specialised skillsets. A professional lawyer will probably be very efficient into understanding, criticise and produce legal matters. A geologyst will have a similar ability on how to prevent floods by properly designing and creating a dam. This happens to be true for a large number of individuals in any community, you will always encounter emerging skills on very specific fields. This is indeed a very useful aspect of a group, taken as a whole you can account for all kinds of skills being available in a group.

The advantage is in the fact that the larger the group, the more valuable specialised ideas and contributions will be generated. Ideally you could obtain professionally compiled documentation and evidence, understandable by the majority, produced by these experts and for the benefit of the entire group. As long as the communication is kept ‘neutral’ and intended for a non technical audience, you can achieve the goal of producing very precise solutions made by competent individuals, understood by the group at large and available to the group’s scrutiny.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Truth, facts, ideas

What is truth? What is a fact? What is an idea, compared to a truth or a fact?

This kind of questions seem to come straight from a philosophical dissertation, but nevertheless they appear to be key in the forming of a technical, logical mind capable of producing optimal solutions to the problems of the man.

It can be observed that these concepts have an inherent power. The highest power I have observed is the power of the ideas. A man can change, fight, evolve or involve, live or die simply by formulating or accepting and making his own an idea. This force alone is, from the point of view of the individual, superior to all other factors since by his ability to formulate or accept ideas he also creates, alters or hides facts to his own sight.
So, having such a strong factor in play, the other factors might assume a less absolute connotation, being influenced by the ideas of the individual.

Then the truth or the fact, as perceived by the individual, modified by his ideas form his point of view about things. This could be an explanation of why we can’t always have a united group with all members thinking equally about the rules or the tenets of the group itself, each member is in reality a very sophisticated thinking or philosophical unit and will be true to itself and its ideas first, then he will try and embrace an external source of thought.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Leadership and communities

A community is not an homogeneous structure of individuals all equals to each other. In fact there is no person equal to another anywhere to be found. Saying that all men are born equal is not precise, I believe, it should rather be ‘all men are born with equal rights’.¬†What are the ideas and consequently the actions of men is what makes then different from each other.

The key factor here is the personal attitude and process of thought. Some individuals are more inclined to cover a leadership role, some others don’t find that of particular interest. As simple as that and there is no harm in having these differences in points of view.

Leaders are a valuable resource in the communities. They fundamentally produce ideas or visions of how the reality can be changed for the better. They follow their goals and do all in their possibilities to make them become reality. They fundamentally operate on an higher than average level of energy, communication and intelligence. Unfortunately the label of ‘leader’ doesn’t make an individual more useful or worth for a community by itself. The key is in the route which has led an individual to emerge and to become considered as a leader by its own community. The leadership label is not something that can be inherited or passed on or attributed by any other means but the actual actions done in our own life experience. And in a community, the leaders have to gain their ‘status’ by receiving such acknowledgement by the community they are working for, as a result of their actual actions, in terms of proposals, solutions or any sort of similar contribution. A leader becomes and remains such for as long as its community agrees on it.

A community accepts and encourages the presence of leaders within them as they are of great help in having a focused attention on key areas of interest for the good of the community. A political methodology which takes into account and respects the role of the leaders is following the natural attitude of the groups of individuals hence it is likely to succeed in being well received by the communities adopting it. At the same time a methodology which has no fair rules on the achievement and holding of the leadership roles would immediately fail into any traditional models where the individual is subject to enforced authorities and degradation of the participation of the community.

A fair way to designate the leaders is essential in a sound political system.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


A requirement for an efficient political solution is a rigorous deterministic approach in its internal processes. This can produce predictability hence confidence by part of the participants.

Transparency is as well fundamental, there is no space for hidden or secret deciding boards for ‘security reasons’, that would become instantly an instrument for decisions affecting the majority by a restricted group of individuals.

Simplicity is as well a key factor: the process should be as short and straightforward as possible and the language adopted throughout should be understandable by the majority, it should not try to sound literate or specialistic when not strictly required.

The focus should be put on the clarity of expression, the precision of the statements and the demonstrability of the facts reported.

A superficial opinion normally opens the doors to endless unfruitful debate, prolonged with further opinions in an aimless challenge to ‘defeat the opponent’.

A fact on the other hand is such when it is documented, demonstrable and sufficient to describe the context of the area involved in the suggested proposal. A fact should encourage the enrichment of the discussion with further facts or documents which can provide a full picture of the problem under scrutiny, possibly with the participation of a moltitude of different points of view. Such discussion, if held on an high enough level of precision, can finally resolve to an equally precise conclusion and solution.

Such process requires a good enough discipline and ability to communicate which might look like an obstacle initially. My belief though is that it is fundamentally a matter of practice and experience. Setting a good example from the start, building a propositive culture and attitude to amend the process as it runs will produce in just few iterations a skilled enough community which will have gained enough ability and confidence in their restored ability to participate to the political life of their communities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Expanding communities

Many communities might decide to start their policy management with modern network technologies, and just like with individuals, some groups will succeed more than others in having a successful and efficient implementation. By having successful examples though, we can establish a good practice and an experienced model, which can be observed and adopted by neighbour groups. Hence you can imagine that one successful implementation might attract or prepare other successful implementation in its proximity. The groups also can decide and agree on the definition of a super-group, which includes the two. This doesn’t invalidate the authority of each individual group but allows for the definition of new proposals and rules with a broader reach, determined by the individuals of the new emerging supergroup. This way you transition from smaller to larger scale by gradual adoption and experience.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment