Implement LLM-driven governance architecture with structured memory
This commit completes the transition to a pure LLM-driven agentic governance system with no hard-coded governance logic. Core Architecture Changes: - Add structured memory system (memory.py) for tracking governance processes - Add LLM tools (tools.py) for deterministic operations (math, dates, random) - Add audit trail system (audit.py) for human-readable decision explanations - Add LLM-driven agent (agent_refactored.py) that interprets constitution Documentation: - Add ARCHITECTURE.md describing process-centric design - Add ARCHITECTURE_EXAMPLE.md with complete workflow walkthrough - Update README.md to reflect current LLM-driven architecture - Simplify constitution.md to benevolent dictator model for testing Templates: - Add 8 governance templates (petition, consensus, do-ocracy, jury, etc.) - Add 8 dispute resolution templates - All templates work with generic process-based architecture Key Design Principles: - "Process" is central abstraction (not "proposal") - No hard-coded process types or thresholds - LLM interprets constitution to understand governance rules - Tools ensure correctness for calculations - Complete auditability with reasoning and citations Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Nathan Schneider
237
templates/README.md
Normal file
237
templates/README.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
|
||||
# Governance Constitution Templates
|
||||
|
||||
This directory contains ready-to-use governance constitution templates based on [CommunityRule](https://communityrule.info/) patterns. Each template provides a complete governance framework that can be used with the governance bot.
|
||||
|
||||
## How to Use These Templates
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Choose a template** that matches your community's governance philosophy
|
||||
2. **Copy the template** to your project root or config directory as `constitution.md`
|
||||
3. **Customize it** to fit your specific community needs
|
||||
4. **Configure your bot** to use the constitution file
|
||||
5. **Iterate** - constitutions can be amended through their own processes
|
||||
|
||||
## Available Templates
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Benevolent Dictator (`benevolent-dictator.md`)
|
||||
**"The Benevolent Dictator holds ultimate decision-making power, until the group is ready for a more inclusive structure."**
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:**
|
||||
- New communities establishing initial direction
|
||||
- Projects with a clear founder/leader
|
||||
- Situations requiring quick decisive action
|
||||
- Communities planning to transition to shared governance
|
||||
|
||||
**Key features:**
|
||||
- Single leader with final authority
|
||||
- Community input and discussion
|
||||
- Delegation of specific powers
|
||||
- Built-in transition mechanisms
|
||||
- Transparent decision-making
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Circles (`circles.md`)
|
||||
**"Units called Circles have the ability to decide and act on matters in their domains, which their members agree on through a Council."**
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:**
|
||||
- Communities with distinct functional areas
|
||||
- Organizations needing domain expertise
|
||||
- Groups wanting distributed decision-making
|
||||
- Communities with specialized working groups
|
||||
|
||||
**Key features:**
|
||||
- Domain-based autonomous units
|
||||
- Representative council for coordination
|
||||
- Lazy consensus decision-making
|
||||
- Clear boundaries between domains
|
||||
- Scalable structure
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Consensus (`consensus.md`)
|
||||
**"Decisions that affect the group collectively should involve participation of all participants."**
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:**
|
||||
- Communities valuing inclusive participation
|
||||
- Groups with strong solidarity culture
|
||||
- Situations where buy-in is crucial
|
||||
- Communities willing to invest time in deliberation
|
||||
|
||||
**Key features:**
|
||||
- Full member participation in decisions
|
||||
- Thorough deliberation processes
|
||||
- Block rights for fundamental concerns
|
||||
- Do-ocracy for personal initiatives
|
||||
- Focus on addressing all concerns
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Do-ocracy (`do-ocracy.md`)
|
||||
**"Those who take initiative to do something in the group can decide how they do it."**
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:**
|
||||
- Action-oriented communities
|
||||
- Groups valuing individual initiative
|
||||
- Projects emphasizing experimentation
|
||||
- Communities wanting low bureaucracy
|
||||
|
||||
**Key features:**
|
||||
- Authority through contribution
|
||||
- Low barriers to action
|
||||
- Community lobbying for major changes
|
||||
- Accountability through reversibility
|
||||
- Trust-based culture
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Elected Board (`elected-board.md`)
|
||||
**"Policy-making body selected through voting processes."**
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:**
|
||||
- Larger communities needing representation
|
||||
- Organizations requiring regular leadership
|
||||
- Groups with diverse stakeholder interests
|
||||
- Communities wanting democratic accountability
|
||||
|
||||
**Key features:**
|
||||
- Regular elections
|
||||
- Representative decision-making
|
||||
- Member petition rights
|
||||
- Board accountability mechanisms
|
||||
- Clear delegation structure
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Jury (`jury.md`)
|
||||
**"Proposals are shaped and decided on by randomly selected juries."**
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:**
|
||||
- Communities wanting fairness through randomness
|
||||
- Groups concerned about power concentration
|
||||
- Organizations valuing deliberation
|
||||
- Communities with engaged membership
|
||||
|
||||
**Key features:**
|
||||
- Random selection (sortition)
|
||||
- Rotating participation
|
||||
- Informed jury deliberation
|
||||
- Policy register and precedents
|
||||
- Legislature coordinates process
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Petition (`petition.md`)
|
||||
**"Community-wide proposal and voting mechanism."**
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:**
|
||||
- Communities valuing direct democracy
|
||||
- Groups with active, engaged members
|
||||
- Organizations wanting simple governance
|
||||
- Communities comfortable with referendums
|
||||
|
||||
**Key features:**
|
||||
- Any member can petition
|
||||
- Direct community-wide voting
|
||||
- Simple majority for most decisions
|
||||
- Supermajority for constitutional changes
|
||||
- No representative layer
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Self-Appointed Board (`self-appointed-board.md`)
|
||||
**"Self-selecting leadership determines policies and implementation."**
|
||||
|
||||
**Best for:**
|
||||
- Communities with clear mission/values
|
||||
- Projects requiring consistent vision
|
||||
- Organizations valuing expertise and experience
|
||||
- Groups comfortable with trustee model
|
||||
|
||||
**Key features:**
|
||||
- Board selects successors
|
||||
- Stability and continuity
|
||||
- Merit-based selection
|
||||
- Member feedback mechanisms
|
||||
- Transparent decision-making
|
||||
|
||||
## Comparison Table
|
||||
|
||||
| Template | Decision Speed | Participation | Complexity | Scalability |
|
||||
|----------|---------------|---------------|------------|-------------|
|
||||
| Benevolent Dictator | Very Fast | Low | Simple | Good |
|
||||
| Circles | Fast | Medium | Medium | Excellent |
|
||||
| Consensus | Slow | Very High | Medium | Limited |
|
||||
| Do-ocracy | Very Fast | High | Simple | Good |
|
||||
| Elected Board | Medium | Medium | Medium | Excellent |
|
||||
| Jury | Slow | Medium | High | Good |
|
||||
| Petition | Medium | Very High | Simple | Good |
|
||||
| Self-Appointed Board | Fast | Low | Simple | Good |
|
||||
|
||||
## Customization Tips
|
||||
|
||||
When adapting a template:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Adjust timeframes** - Discussion and voting periods to fit your community's pace
|
||||
2. **Modify thresholds** - Voting percentages and quorum requirements
|
||||
3. **Add your values** - Incorporate your code of conduct and community principles
|
||||
4. **Specify your context** - Platform-specific details (Mastodon, Discord, etc.)
|
||||
5. **Keep it readable** - The bot interprets natural language, so write clearly
|
||||
|
||||
## Combining Templates
|
||||
|
||||
You can mix elements from different templates:
|
||||
- Start with Benevolent Dictator, transition to Elected Board
|
||||
- Use Circles for some domains, Consensus for others
|
||||
- Combine Do-ocracy with Petition for different decision types
|
||||
- Layer Jury on top of Elected Board for major decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Customizations
|
||||
|
||||
**Timeframes:**
|
||||
- Standard proposal: 5-7 days typical
|
||||
- Urgent: 2-3 days
|
||||
- Constitutional: 10-14 days
|
||||
|
||||
**Voting Thresholds:**
|
||||
- Simple majority: 50% + 1
|
||||
- Supermajority: 60-67%
|
||||
- Consensus: 90-100%
|
||||
|
||||
**Quorum Requirements:**
|
||||
- Low engagement: no quorum
|
||||
- Medium: 10-20% of members
|
||||
- High: 30-50% of members
|
||||
|
||||
## Dispute Resolution Templates
|
||||
|
||||
**NEW!** We've added comprehensive dispute resolution templates in the `dispute-resolution/` subdirectory.
|
||||
|
||||
Good governance requires not just decision-making processes, but also ways to handle conflicts. The dispute resolution templates can be integrated into any governance constitution as conflict resolution articles.
|
||||
|
||||
**8 Dispute Resolution Processes Available:**
|
||||
- **Peer-to-Peer** - Self-facilitated direct resolution
|
||||
- **Chosen Facilitator** - Mutually selected facilitator guides process
|
||||
- **Restorative Justice** - Circle process emphasizing healing
|
||||
- **Transformative Justice** - Addressing root causes and systemic change
|
||||
- **Community Jury** - Random selection for formal decisions
|
||||
- **Community Referee** - Single trained referee decides
|
||||
- **Facilitation Council** - Panel of facilitators manages process
|
||||
- **Shalish Mediation** - Traditional village mediation modernized
|
||||
|
||||
See `dispute-resolution/README.md` for detailed comparison and guidance on choosing the right process for your community.
|
||||
|
||||
**Integration Options:**
|
||||
1. Add one dispute resolution article to your constitution
|
||||
2. Create multiple pathways for different severity levels
|
||||
3. Build an escalation ladder from simple to complex processes
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing Your Constitution
|
||||
|
||||
Before deployment:
|
||||
1. Review with your founding members
|
||||
2. Simulate common scenarios
|
||||
3. Test with the bot using CLI mode
|
||||
4. Run a trial period with amendments allowed
|
||||
5. Document learnings and adjust
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributing
|
||||
|
||||
Found an issue with a template? Have a suggestion? Open an issue or PR at the main repository.
|
||||
|
||||
## Credits
|
||||
|
||||
**Governance Templates** are inspired by [CommunityRule](https://communityrule.info/), a project by the Media Enterprise Design Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder.
|
||||
|
||||
**Dispute Resolution Templates** are adapted from the [Dispute Protocol Builder](https://git.medlab.host/dispute-protocol/builder-prototype), also by the Media Enterprise Design Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder.
|
||||
|
||||
All templates have been adapted for use with agentic governance bots and formatted in natural language for AI interpretation.
|
||||
|
||||
## License
|
||||
|
||||
[To be determined - match project license]
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user