Re: [soa-rm-ra] random and nonrandom thoughts on governance

[Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>]

On Sep 6, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:

> See inline.
>
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 7:31 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>> Hi Ken
>>  There is a lot I agree with here. I do have a few differences  
>> though ... (life would be *so* boring :)
>>
>>  1. I agree completely that participants can be organizations. And  
>> that the cardinalities are *..*.
>>  2. I have a bit of heartache with the way that you characterize  
>> goals of participants and organizations. I do not think that they  
>> should be conflated:
>>
> My  intent is to say that both have Goals that make their way into  
> Governance, not that they have the same goals.  So in that we agree,
>>  a. An organization may have goals; and governance may be in  
>> furtherance of those goals. (A link that is not to be assumed, but  
>> to be strived for I believe.)
> I don't know about being strived for but from my experience I  
> almost always see participants trying to use governance to further  
> their goals.  Most of the time it causes grief because participants  
> don't always come with the same goals

The genius of the architects of the US constitution was to define the  
architecture so that in its operation the goals of the framers would  
be furthered as a side-effect of the goals of the participants.

Since organizations cannot act directly (only people and artificial  
agents can), we may be stuck with this kind of second-order effect of  
goal satisfaction wrt governance.

<snip/>