bda868cb45
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>
260 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown
260 lines
8.2 KiB
Markdown
# Consensus Constitution
|
|
|
|
This constitution establishes participatory governance where collective decisions require inclusive deliberation and broad agreement.
|
|
|
|
## Article 1: Governance Principles
|
|
|
|
### Section 1.1: Consensus Decision-Making
|
|
Decisions affecting the collective require:
|
|
- Inclusive participation of all members
|
|
- Thorough deliberation and discussion
|
|
- Active effort to address all concerns
|
|
- Decisions that everyone can live with
|
|
|
|
### Section 1.2: Good Faith Participation
|
|
Members engage in consensus with:
|
|
- Willingness to listen and adapt
|
|
- Respect for diverse perspectives
|
|
- Focus on community wellbeing
|
|
- Commitment to finding common ground
|
|
|
|
### Section 1.3: Balance of Action and Participation
|
|
While consensus is the goal:
|
|
- Individual initiative (do-ocracy) is encouraged for non-collective matters
|
|
- Consensus required for decisions affecting shared resources or community direction
|
|
- Clear distinction between personal actions and collective decisions
|
|
|
|
## Article 2: Membership
|
|
|
|
### Section 2.1: Member Rights
|
|
All members have equal rights to:
|
|
- Participate in all consensus processes
|
|
- Propose decisions for community consideration
|
|
- Voice concerns and objections
|
|
- Access all governance discussions and records
|
|
- Request slower pace or more information
|
|
|
|
### Section 2.2: Membership Criteria
|
|
The community determines membership through consensus:
|
|
- Application process defined collectively
|
|
- Existing members evaluate new applicants
|
|
- Membership decisions via consensus
|
|
- Trial periods may be used
|
|
|
|
### Section 2.3: Member Responsibilities
|
|
Members commit to:
|
|
- Participate in governance when able
|
|
- Consider community impact of their actions
|
|
- Engage constructively in deliberation
|
|
- Honor consensus decisions
|
|
- Support fellow members
|
|
|
|
## Article 3: Consensus Process
|
|
|
|
### Section 3.1: Proposal Creation
|
|
Any member may bring a proposal:
|
|
1. Post proposal mentioning @govbot
|
|
2. Include clear description and rationale
|
|
3. Specify what decision is needed
|
|
4. Bot opens deliberation period
|
|
|
|
### Section 3.2: Deliberation Period
|
|
Proposals enter deliberation:
|
|
- Standard proposals: 7 days minimum
|
|
- Urgent proposals: 3 days minimum (with justification)
|
|
- Constitutional amendments: 14 days minimum
|
|
- Extensions granted if members request more time
|
|
|
|
### Section 3.3: Discussion and Refinement
|
|
During deliberation:
|
|
- All members can comment and ask questions
|
|
- Concerns are raised and discussed
|
|
- Proposer may modify proposal based on feedback
|
|
- Goal is to address all significant concerns
|
|
- Bot tracks discussion and proposal versions
|
|
|
|
### Section 3.4: Reaching Consensus
|
|
Consensus is reached when:
|
|
- No member states they "block" the proposal
|
|
- All raised concerns have been addressed or withdrawn
|
|
- Members express support or "stand aside"
|
|
- Bot confirms consensus and records decision
|
|
|
|
## Article 4: Response Types
|
|
|
|
### Section 4.1: Support
|
|
"I support this proposal" or "Agree"
|
|
- Member actively backs the proposal
|
|
- Willing to help implement if needed
|
|
|
|
### Section 4.2: Stand Aside
|
|
"I stand aside" or "Abstain"
|
|
- Member has reservations but won't block
|
|
- Allows decision to proceed without their support
|
|
- May not wish to participate in implementation
|
|
|
|
### Section 4.3: Concerns
|
|
"I have concerns about..."
|
|
- Member raises issues needing discussion
|
|
- Doesn't block but seeks resolution
|
|
- Proposer and community address concerns
|
|
- May result in proposal modification
|
|
|
|
### Section 4.4: Block
|
|
"I block this proposal because..."
|
|
- Fundamental objection preventing consensus
|
|
- Must include explanation and reasoning
|
|
- Triggers deeper discussion
|
|
- Requires addressing the core concern
|
|
- Cannot be used lightly or without justification
|
|
|
|
## Article 5: Addressing Blocks
|
|
|
|
### Section 5.1: Block Discussion
|
|
When a block is raised:
|
|
1. Blocker explains fundamental concern
|
|
2. Community discusses underlying issues
|
|
3. Proposer may modify proposal
|
|
4. Alternative solutions explored
|
|
5. Continue until consensus or proposal withdrawn
|
|
|
|
### Section 5.2: Legitimate Blocks
|
|
Blocks are appropriate when:
|
|
- Proposal violates core community values
|
|
- Serious ethical concerns exist
|
|
- Proposal would harm members or community
|
|
- Constitutional principles at stake
|
|
- Major unaddressed risks
|
|
|
|
### Section 5.3: Working Through Blocks
|
|
To resolve blocks:
|
|
- Listen deeply to blocker's concerns
|
|
- Understand the underlying values at stake
|
|
- Propose modifications addressing root issues
|
|
- Consider alternative approaches
|
|
- May need to pause and return later
|
|
- Sometimes proposals should be withdrawn
|
|
|
|
## Article 6: Do-ocracy
|
|
|
|
### Section 6.1: Personal Initiative
|
|
Members can act independently when:
|
|
- Action doesn't affect shared resources
|
|
- Decision doesn't impact other members
|
|
- Falls within member's personal domain
|
|
- Doesn't contradict collective decisions
|
|
|
|
### Section 6.2: Responsibility with Initiative
|
|
Those who take initiative:
|
|
- Are responsible for their actions
|
|
- Should communicate what they're doing
|
|
- Must respect others' autonomy
|
|
- Can be asked to change course by consensus
|
|
|
|
### Section 6.3: When Consensus Required
|
|
Consensus is required for:
|
|
- Changes to shared resources or spaces
|
|
- Policy affecting multiple members
|
|
- Spending community funds
|
|
- Actions using community name/identity
|
|
- Decisions binding on others
|
|
|
|
## Article 7: Exclusion and Boundaries
|
|
|
|
### Section 7.1: Community Boundaries
|
|
The community can make exclusion decisions via consensus:
|
|
- Removing members who violate core values
|
|
- Blocking disruptive participants
|
|
- Defederating from harmful instances
|
|
- Setting participation requirements
|
|
|
|
### Section 7.2: Exclusion Process
|
|
For exclusion decisions:
|
|
1. Concerns raised about member's behavior
|
|
2. Community discusses issue (minimum 5 days)
|
|
3. Member in question can respond and participate
|
|
4. Community seeks consensus on appropriate response
|
|
5. Ranges from warning to removal
|
|
6. Bot implements decision if consensus reached
|
|
|
|
### Section 7.3: Due Process
|
|
Members facing exclusion:
|
|
- Must be notified of concerns
|
|
- Have right to respond and participate
|
|
- Can appeal to constitutional principles
|
|
- Exclusion only via clear consensus
|
|
|
|
## Article 8: Administrative Actions
|
|
|
|
### Section 8.1: Routine Administration
|
|
Routine actions can proceed without consensus:
|
|
- Server maintenance and updates
|
|
- Implementing already-decided policies
|
|
- Emergency security responses
|
|
- Technical operations
|
|
- Must be reported to community
|
|
|
|
### Section 8.2: Policy Actions
|
|
Policy changes require consensus:
|
|
- Moderation policy
|
|
- Code of conduct
|
|
- Community guidelines
|
|
- Federation policies
|
|
- Bot authority and capabilities
|
|
|
|
### Section 8.3: Emergency Actions
|
|
For urgent safety matters:
|
|
- Any member can take protective action
|
|
- Must explain action to community immediately
|
|
- Community reviews via expedited consensus
|
|
- Action may be reversed if consensus determines
|
|
|
|
## Article 9: Constitutional Interpretation
|
|
|
|
### Section 9.1: Interpretation Process
|
|
When constitutional meaning is unclear:
|
|
1. Member requests interpretation from @govbot
|
|
2. Bot provides initial interpretation with reasoning
|
|
3. Community discusses interpretation
|
|
4. Consensus on correct interpretation
|
|
5. May lead to constitutional amendment for clarity
|
|
|
|
### Section 9.2: Precedent
|
|
Bot maintains record of:
|
|
- Consensus decisions and their reasoning
|
|
- Constitutional interpretations
|
|
- How past issues were resolved
|
|
- Guides future similar situations
|
|
|
|
## Article 10: Constitutional Amendments
|
|
|
|
### Section 10.1: Amendment Process
|
|
To amend this constitution:
|
|
1. Member proposes specific amendment
|
|
2. Extended deliberation (14 days minimum)
|
|
3. Thorough discussion of implications
|
|
4. Must reach clear consensus
|
|
5. Bot updates constitution when consensus achieved
|
|
|
|
### Section 10.2: Core Principles
|
|
Amendments should preserve:
|
|
- Participatory decision-making
|
|
- Inclusive deliberation
|
|
- Good faith engagement
|
|
- Protection of member rights
|
|
- Consensus process
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Notes
|
|
|
|
This constitution creates participatory governance through consensus:
|
|
|
|
1. **Inclusion**: All members participate in collective decisions
|
|
2. **Deliberation**: Thorough discussion before decisions
|
|
3. **Flexibility**: Do-ocracy for individual initiative
|
|
4. **Safety**: Exclusion processes protect community
|
|
5. **Adaptation**: Consensus evolves with community needs
|
|
|
|
The bot should facilitate inclusive discussion, track deliberations, help clarify concerns, and confirm when consensus is reached. The bot should err on the side of more discussion rather than prematurely declaring consensus.
|