agentic-govbot/templates/jury.md

Jury Constitution

This constitution establishes governance through randomly selected juries that deliberate on and decide community proposals.

Article 1: Governance Principle

Section 1.1: Sortition Democracy

This community governs through sortition:

• Decision-making juries selected randomly from members
• Random selection ensures fairness and broad representation
• Rotating juries spread governance participation
• Counteracts influence of wealth, connections, or charisma

Section 1.2: Jury Authority

Juries have authority to:

• Decide on proposals within their scope
• Make binding decisions for the community
• Interpret policies and constitution
• Authorize administrative actions

Section 1.3: The Legislature

The Legislature coordinates governance:

• Receives and organizes proposals
• Selects juries for proposals
• Manages the policy register
• Ensures orderly governance process

Article 2: Membership and Eligibility

Section 2.1: Member Rights

All community members have the right to:

• Petition for proposals
• Be selected for jury service
• Observe jury deliberations
• Appeal jury decisions to new jury
• Access the policy register

Section 2.2: Jury Eligibility

Members are eligible for jury service if:

• Active member for at least 60 days
• Agreed to code of conduct
• Not currently serving on another jury
• No conflict of interest on specific proposal
• Bot tracks eligibility

Section 2.3: Jury Duty

Jury service is a civic responsibility:

• Members should accept when selected
• Can decline for valid reasons
• Serve for duration of assigned proposal
• Compensated if community decides

Article 3: Proposals and Petitions

Section 3.1: Petition Process

Any member can petition:

1. Draft proposal with clear question
2. Gather signatures (minimum 5% of eligible members)
3. Submit to Legislature via @govbot
4. Legislature validates and processes

Section 3.2: Proposal Types

Proposals can address:

• Policy changes
• Resource allocation
• Administrative actions
• Constitutional amendments
• Platform configuration
• Moderation policies

Section 3.3: Proposal Requirements

Valid proposals must:

• State clear decision question
• Provide necessary context
• Identify impact and scope
• Suggest implementation approach
• Include timeframe if relevant

Article 4: The Legislature

Section 4.1: Legislature Composition

The Legislature consists of:

• 7 members selected by sortition
• 6-month rotating terms
• 3-4 members rotate out every 3 months
• Ensures continuity and fresh perspectives

Section 4.2: Legislature Responsibilities

The Legislature:

• Receives and reviews petitions
• Validates proposal requirements
• Determines jury size for each proposal
• Conducts sortition for juries
• Maintains policy register
• Tracks jury decisions

Section 4.3: Legislature Operations

Legislature operates via:

• Regular meetings (at least biweekly)
• Simple majority for routine decisions
• All meetings open to observation
• Minutes published
• Bot facilitates operations

Article 5: Jury Selection and Composition

Section 5.1: Sortition Process

Juries selected randomly:

1. Legislature determines jury size (5-11 members)
2. Bot identifies eligible members
3. Random selection from eligible pool
4. Members notified of selection
5. Jury confirmed when members accept

Section 5.2: Jury Size

Jury size based on proposal scope:

• Routine decisions: 5 members
• Significant policies: 7 members
• Major changes: 9 members
• Constitutional amendments: 11 members

Section 5.3: Conflict of Interest

Members must decline jury service if:

• Direct personal interest in outcome
• Close relationship with petitioner
• Unable to be impartial
• Bot tracks recusals

Article 6: Jury Deliberation

Section 6.1: Deliberation Process

Juries decide through deliberation:

1. Review proposal and context
2. Hear from petitioners
3. Discuss among jury members
4. Seek additional information if needed
5. Deliberate toward decision
6. Reach verdict

Typical timeline: 10-14 days

Section 6.2: Information Gathering

Juries can:

• Request presentations from petitioners
• Invite expert input
• Ask questions of community
• Research relevant information
• Consult policy register and precedents
• Bot assists with information access

Section 6.3: Jury Autonomy

During deliberation:

• Jury operates independently
• Community members can submit input but cannot participate in jury discussion
• Jury determines its own process
• Jury decides when ready to vote

Article 7: Jury Decisions

Section 7.1: Decision Making

Juries decide by majority vote:

• Each juror has equal vote
• Majority needed for proposal to pass
• Ties result in proposal failing
• Votes can be anonymous or public (jury decides)

Section 7.2: Written Opinions

Jury publishes decision with:

• Verdict (approve/reject)
• Reasoning and rationale
• Implementation guidance if approved
• Any dissenting opinions
• Bot publishes and archives decision

Section 7.3: Implementation

Approved proposals:

• Entered into policy register
• Bot implements authorized actions
• Legislature tracks implementation
• Community notified of changes

Article 8: Policy Register

Section 8.1: The Register

The policy register contains:

• All approved proposals and policies
• Jury decisions and reasoning
• Implementation status
• Constitutional amendments
• Governance precedents

Section 8.2: Register Maintenance

Legislature maintains register:

• Organizes by topic and date
• Keeps register current
• Archives superseded policies
• Ensures public accessibility
• Bot provides register database

Section 8.3: Register as Precedent

Jury decisions serve as precedent:

• Future juries consult past decisions
• Precedent provides consistency
• Juries can distinguish or overturn precedent
• Constitutional interpretations especially weighty

Article 9: Appeals and Reconsideration

Section 9.1: Appeal Process

Decisions can be appealed:

1. Member petitions for reconsideration
2. Must show new information or error
3. Requires petition signatures (10% of members)
4. New jury selected to hear appeal
5. Original jury decision stands unless overturned

Section 9.2: Constitutional Challenges

Decisions can be challenged as unconstitutional:

• Special constitutional jury selected (11 members)
• Reviews decision against constitution
• Can overturn if unconstitutional
• Constitutional precedent established

Section 9.3: Emergency Review

For urgent issues:

• Emergency jury convened (5 members)
• Expedited process (3 days)
• Can temporarily halt implementation
• Full jury review follows

Article 10: Administrative Actions

Section 10.1: Implementing Decisions

Jury-approved actions implemented by:

• Bot executing authorized actions
• Designated community members
• Legislature coordinating
• All actions logged

Section 10.2: Moderation

Moderation handled by:

• Moderation jury for policy
• Moderators executing policy
• Appeals to randomly selected jury
• Bot supports moderation actions

Section 10.3: Platform Management

Platform changes require:

• Proposal and jury approval
• Technical committee implementation
• Legislature oversight
• Bot logs all changes

Article 11: Constitutional Amendments

Section 11.1: Amendment Process

To amend this constitution:

1. Petition with 10% member signatures
2. Legislature selects 11-member constitutional jury
3. Extended deliberation (21 days minimum)
4. Requires 2/3 jury supermajority (8 of 11)
5. Bot updates constitution if approved

Section 11.2: Constitutional Interpretation

For interpretation questions:

• Constitutional jury selected
• Reviews question and precedents
• Issues interpretation
• Binding on future juries
• Can be overturned by constitutional amendment

Section 11.3: Core Principles

Amendments should preserve:

• Random jury selection
• Fair representation
• Petition rights
• Policy register
• Appeal mechanisms

---

Implementation Notes

This constitution creates sortition-based governance:

1. Random Selection: Fair representation through lottery
2. Rotating Participation: Many members serve over time
3. Informed Decisions: Juries deliberate thoroughly
4. Precedent: Policy register provides consistency
5. Accountability: Appeals and constitutional review

The bot should conduct sortition fairly, support jury operations, maintain the policy register, implement approved decisions, and ensure transparency throughout the process.