Protocolbot
3522c2ec5c
Added 94 new protocol YAML seed files covering diverse global cultures and practices: Indigenous & traditional: Maori powhiri, Aboriginal yarning, Somali xeer, Moroccan jmaa, Tswana kgotla, Zulu imbizo, Peruvian ronda campesina, Ohlone land-back, Inuit IQ consensus, Haudenosaunee condolence, Navajo peacemaking, Ojibwe pipe ceremony, Polynesian talanoa, Rwandan gacaca, West African palaver tree, Mexican tequio, Javanese musyawarah-mufakat, Tibetan story council, Korean yangban, Filipino utari, Ainu practices Religious communities: Quaker meeting for business, clearness committee, Amish shunning (Meidung), Mennonite discernment, Jewish hevruta, Rastafari nyabinghi reasoning Facilitation: World Cafe, Open Space, Future Search, Six Thinking Hats, Dynamic Facilitation, Socratic Seminar, Delphi method, Copenhagen Consensus, Lean Coffee, Hackathon sprint, Agile retrospective, Stand-up meeting, Pair programming, Roadmap planning Governance: Sociocratic consent selection, Dynamic self-governance, Cooperative consensus, Hackerspace consensus, Mastodon governance, Climate assemblies (x2), Basque asamblearismo Conflict & repair: Restorative conference, circle sentencing, Nonviolent Communication (3 protocols), Active listening mirror, Appreciative apology repair Community & care: Community kitchen, Gratefulness circle, Passing circle, Paired walking, Deep listening dyad, Mutual aid, Permaculture charrette Education: Barefoot College night school, Socratic seminar Everyday: Various greeting, transition, and gratitude protocols All protocols credit original sources. Cultural context noted in descriptions. All YAML files validated.
45 lines
1.9 KiB
YAML
45 lines
1.9 KiB
YAML
id: copenhagen-consensus
|
|
title: Copenhagen Consensus Expert Prioritisation
|
|
description: >-
|
|
A method where a panel of economists prioritises global challenges by
|
|
cost-benefit analysis, used by the Copenhagen Consensus Center founded
|
|
by Bjorn Lomborg. Combines expert panels with economic evaluation to
|
|
direct attention to the most effective interventions.
|
|
source: Copenhagen Consensus Center
|
|
source_url: https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
|
|
tags: [prioritisation, experts, cost-benefit, global, policy]
|
|
forked_from: null
|
|
image: null
|
|
steps:
|
|
- headline: Commission challenge papers
|
|
description: >-
|
|
For each challenge, an expert is commissioned to write a paper
|
|
assessing interventions and their cost-benefit ratios, with
|
|
transparent methodology.
|
|
- headline: Expert panel deliberates
|
|
description: >-
|
|
A panel of distinguished economists reads the papers, questions the
|
|
authors, and deliberates on the relative value of interventions
|
|
across challenges.
|
|
- headline: Rank by return
|
|
description: >-
|
|
The panel ranks interventions by their benefit-cost ratio, producing
|
|
a list that directs attention and resources to the highest-return
|
|
options.
|
|
- headline: Publish with dissent
|
|
description: >-
|
|
The rankings are published with the panel's reasoning and any
|
|
dissenting notes, so the basis is transparent and open to challenge.
|
|
- headline: Invite response
|
|
description: >-
|
|
The wider community of experts and the public are invited to respond,
|
|
with the possibility of revisiting rankings in light of new
|
|
evidence.
|
|
outcome: >-
|
|
A transparent prioritisation of interventions, based on cost-benefit
|
|
analysis and expert deliberation, published with reasoning for
|
|
scrutiny.
|
|
practice: >-
|
|
The cost-benefit frame has limits — it can miss values not easily
|
|
monetised. Use it as one input, not as the answer. Transparency of
|
|
method is what makes it challengeable. |