OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Definition of Governance

Actually, I believe that the US Constitution creation process and
personnel unique in history; a complete discontinuity with all previous
governance processes, despite historians attempts to trace back further
to the Magana Charta, the Greeks, etc.  Yes, the concepts were derived
from various sources, but the fact was that the constitutional
convention was much like a standards technical committee whose goal was
governance of a country.  That they did an outstanding job is reflected
by the number of times others have more or less copied it.  Part of the
job included the Declaration of Independence and part was the Bill of
Rights, but yes they were an extraordinary team.

Having said, I think it makes sense to look at their deliverable for a
functional pattern (an architecture, if you will) for governance.  


PS--I am a highly professional cynic and PITA, just ask my management.


-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:frankmccabe@mac.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:31 PM
To: Ken Laskey
Cc: Ellinger, Robert; soa-rm-ra
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Definition of Governance

I do not believe that we need to cater to 'evil' people.

However, nor do we need to restrict ourselves to 'do-gooders' either.

I suggest, however, that we do restrict the scope of governance to the
'smooth running' of the system. That, was one reason that I felt that
individual participants' goals are out of scope for governance.

On Sep 10, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:

> It would be interesting to evaluate governance success vs. how clear 
> and accurate the statement was of governance goals, but I believe that

> is out of scope :-).
> My past standards associate, Carl Cargill, noted that standards 
> development has a very long and dishonorable history.  (Carl has been 
> at this much longer than I and also has a very well honed sense of 
> cynicism.)  Per Carl, the intent of participants is always to see if 
> they can control the agenda to their benefit, they compromise when 
> getting some of what they want is better than nothing, and they often 
> create new standards organizations when they can't sufficiently 
> control the existing ones.  Those are the explicit goals and processes

> of most participants in economic ecosystems.
> The problem with comparison to the US Constitution is we rarely have a

> collection of people of that caliber whose goal is the public good and

> not primarily their own.
> Our governance model needs to cover both.
> Ken
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 4:18 PM, Ellinger, Robert wrote:
>> Some thoughts that I have been working for a book on a new type of 
>> economics, entitled Organizational Economics: The Formation of 
>> Wealth.
>> Obviously the US Constitution defines the functional structure of 
>> governance in the three branches of government, but more
>> importantly for our discussion it defines the goal of governance.   
>> The preamble to the US Constitution has an excellent definition of 
>> the reason of governance and is the constitution structure reflects a

>> good governance architecture.
>> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect 
>> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for 
>> the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the 
>> Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and 
>> establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
>> The blue-lighted/bolded clauses make up a good definition of the 
>> goals of governance, i.e., what it is supposed to do.  Governance 
>> "establishes justice, (a level playing field and/or rules of 
>> competitive non-lethal engagement) which ensures a good Saturday 
>> night for the weak (that is, domestic tranquility because there is a 
>> level playing field and rules of engagement that are supposed to 
>> apply to everyone equally, [except for Congress {if con is the 
>> opposite of pro, what is the opposite of progress?}]); and promote 
>> the general welfare in two ways (by setting measurement standards 
>> (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which states "...to regulate 
>> Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with

>> the Indian Tribes." and in other clauses To coin money, regulate the 
>> value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights 
>> and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the 
>> securities and current coin of the United States; To promote the 
>> progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to

>> authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective 
>> writings and discoveries) and by ensuring a communications 
>> infrastructure of that era (To establish post offices and post 
>> roads).
>> I suspect that governance in all organizations have the same goals.  
>> The reason for differences is cultural more than functional.  These 
>> are not individual or organizational goals only, but also the 
>> implicit goals of all economic ecosystems and the reasons for 
>> alliances and standards organizations (e.g., its hard to trade 
>> without standard weights and measures and without an impartial 
>> market--which explains the reason for markets worrying about insider 
>> trading).
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]