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

[Michael Stiefel <development@reliablesoftware.com>]

Don't forget the Constitution was Rev 2. Rev 1, the Articles of the 
Confederation was a failure. So there was some historical process here at work.

Michael

At 09:42 PM 9/10/2007, Ellinger, Robert wrote:
>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.
>
>Bob
>
>PS--I am a highly professional cynic and PITA, just ask my management.
>
>B
>
>-----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
> >