There’s currently HIP-5 that stipulates 3 phases for a binding proposal. A first signalling poll will be launched at phase 2.
If the Principle of the spirit of the law would have been in place, we would not have the catastrophic failure of rule #4 of video submissions, where a lot of 360p videos measuring 352 pixels wide were not accepted as valid. This is just one example of a use case of this principle.
1 Like
I see your point, Isaac. This is just the ideation phase and there is a long road to make it binding. I agree that flexibility is key in developing DAOs, but it is also important to have the minimum foundations of it to build it upon. Maybe the removal of some of the principles is a way to be less stiffened on the way forward.
The language principle is indeed a complicated thing to build upon within the platform from a technical standpoint, but you have to admit that when you impose someone else to learn a language that is not your mother tongue, you are creating a different set of opportunities for them. 360 million people speak English as first language, 4.6% of world population. This means that 95% would need to learn English to operate within the platform (second-language percentage of world population is hard to estimate but worst estimates say that 75% do not speak English at all). This must be discussed and it is going to be a hot debate. I personally say half joking and half seriously that everyone should learn Esperanto in the long way. That is the only way we all play in a leveled field.
1 Like
Yes absolutely language is an issue. The fact is that English is the de facto language of the web, and unless we want to stray into dark waters (Cantonese anyone?) perhaps it would need better, easier to keep things simple for now? I don’t have a solution.
You have to ask yourself “simple for who?”. I am a priviledged person in my country because I had very expensive English language education and this is why I am able to debate with you right now. How many of the brilliant minds on the 75% of the world would not be part of this conversation?
2 Likes
I agree with you, I also admire the effort and thought put into this, and I share the motivation behind it.
We are now a community of less than 5000 registered people, and I dare to day less than 300 that are active in the forum. It seems to me that it’s very early to establish principles that were not developed organically. The Burning Man principles were created 18 years after the first burn, we can a wait a few months.
I can see how some of the principles come from pre-established ideas of what they are trying to accomplish. I would rather prefer to discuss the proposals without any written “binding” principles that can murky the waters for a proper discussion. We already saw how one of the principles would have affected the discussion on requiring challengers to be registered, even before it was approved: HIP-9 [Phase-1]: Require registered users to challenge profiles - #31 by 0x6687c671980e65ebd722b9146fc61e2471558dd6_Ethereum
An an alternative, maybe we can discuss 5 of them at a time, with the proper time and engagement?
3 Likes
+1 for the idea. This reminds me of the famous Python Easter Egg, Zen of Python, which serves as guiding inspiration in that community:
>>> import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
1 Like
Values statements like this are important because they enable an organization to maintain a moral compass:
Values [lead to] Goals [which lead to] Tasks
Each thing we do should be traceable back to a core value.
Style Suggestion: Chunking in Groups of 3–5 items
Humans are only good at keeping a limited number of things in their heads. A common speechwriting guideline is to make your three best points, etc.
A relevant example for us: The Six Pillars of Character See how they “chunk” many good ideas together, and made tough choices. E.g., courage can be found under trustworthiness.
2 Likes
I think it would be important to say that we should create in a way in alignment with all principles. The ‘keep it fun’ principle is the most important one. From a value creation point of view, fun is free. One of the biggest issues I see in change-making is that people take it too seriously. Virtue doesn’t bridge as deep into communities as much as humour does. Algorithmically it is a deliberate ploy to get scale. Taiwan’s use of memes to deal with misinformation is a good example. Humour over rumour? The world can learn a lot from Taiwan’s approach to fake news | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian
1 Like
I think this is a fair and interesting point. There are two aspects at play here as well. Is the purpose of this platform to reliably identity every human or solve global poverty? I find that the essence of projects is best described by the initiators. I’d be interested in how @santisiri would articulate the core purpose of the project. Yes I think it should be the first thing to be mentioned before the ‘how we travel there’ is laid out.
French translation
[Phase 1] HIP-11 : Établir un ensemble de principes directeurs pour Proof of Humanity
Résumé
Cette proposition définit la mise en œuvre d’un ensemble de principes fondamentaux qui guident les décisions de la DAO.
Résumé
Actuellement, les règles et les procédures du PoH sont faites sans aucun principe directeur ou cadre commun. Bien que la décentralisation de la gouvernance crée de nouvelles opportunités et des avantages pour les gouvernements centralisés, elle peut également créer des opportunités d’abus ou d’exploitation du système de la part de mauvais agents. Cet ensemble de principes est conçu pour les contrer. Cela permettra de générer une hiérarchie normative pour les principes, les HIP et les actions individuelles au sein du système.
Motivation
L’objectif est de développer un ensemble de principes directeurs qui soutiennent la gouvernance du système. Chaque décision sera testée par rapport à ces principes directeurs afin de s’assurer rester aligner avec notre vision.
Proof of Humanity court le risque de suivre les règles et les décisions telles qu’ elles ont été écrites, plutôt que dans l’esprit du projet. Nous construisons une technologie au service des droits humains fondamentaux. Sans un ensemble de principes fondamentaux, il est difficile de créer le contexte de chaque décision.
Les modèles de gouvernance tels que la Déclaration des droits, la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme 1 et les 10 principes de Burning Man sont des approches directrices qui aident les pays et les communautés à développer une meilleure gouvernance.
Spécification
Ce qui suit est une suggestion pour une liste de principes :
Les principes directeurs de la preuve d’humanité (POH)
Le principe d’humanité - les humains doivent toujours passer en premier.
Le principe d’égalité - tous les humains doivent être traités de la même manière et avoir les mêmes chances dans le système.
Le principe d’équité - tous les humains doivent être traités équitablement dans toutes les interactions au sein du système.
Le principe de transparence : toutes les interactions doivent être totalement transparentes.
Le principe d’abondance - l’argent ne doit jamais être un obstacle à l’accès au système, à la participation à la gouvernance, aux tribunaux ou à la sortie du système.
Le principe de bienveillance - tous les systèmes et processus doivent être bienveillants.
Le principe de non-nuisance –tous les systèmes et processus ne doivent faire de mal à aucun humain.
Le principe des 7 générations - tous les systèmes doivent être construits en pensant aux 7 prochaines générations.
Le principe de prendre plaisir à participer - le chemin parcouru est aussi important que la destination.
Le principe de la souveraineté - chaque humain au sein du système a sa propre volonté et ne sera pas contraint d’agir contre sa volonté.
Le principe de la liberté d’expression - chaque humain est libre d’exprimer ses idées, son désaccord, tant qu’elles ne sont pas haineuses ou incitatives.
Le principe de la liberté de réunion - les personnes du système ont la liberté de former des collectifs pour défendre ou partager leurs idées, tant qu’elles ne violent pas les autres principes.
Le principe de l’esprit de la loi - l’esprit d’une loi doit primer sur la lettre de la loi.
Le principe de la neutralité linguistique - aucune langue du système ne doit être désavantagée par rapport à une autre.
Le principe de parcimonie - toutes choses étant égales, la solution la plus simple à un problème doit toujours prévaloir.
Le principe de la bonne intendance de l’environnement - prendre en compte l’utilisation responsable et la protection de notre planète.
Le principe de décentralisation - toutes les précautions doivent être prises pour que les systèmes restent à l’abri de la centralisation et du contrôle.
Le principe de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme - Proof of Humanity endosse explicitement cette déclaration jusqu’à ce qu’une version décentralisée soit disponible.
Remerciements à @ludovico et @Justin pour leur collaboration sur ce sujet. Nous serions ravis de recevoir vos commentaires sur cette approche globale.
Hat tip to Dan Acher for this.
3 Likes
I think there is a good argument to discussing each item individually. There is also a good argument to go an initial binding vote to suggest that we are governed by a guiding set of principles which will then be discussed and voted on individually.
2 Likes
What do we do when we find out we’re not being kind? How do we walk the talk?
1 Like
As long as every principle is stated individually as a separate proposal for accept/reject I would be ok with this. We could order the principles by acceptance rate, and perhaps they should be re-prioritized periodically.
4 Likes
I believe we need defined values to which come back when making decisions. Does not mean approve something to approve, but the length of this thread in the so short time from its creation tells that is an important topic to open and discuss for more ppl. And as said, this needs to be discussed in more languages than English.
Maybe a workshop would be nice to have. Anyone here with experience in facilitating workshops? (does not mean now:)
2 Likes
Spanish version - Versión en Español:
Los principios rectores de Proof of Humanity
El principio de humanidad: los seres humanos deben estar siempre lo primero.
El principio de igualdad: todos los seres humanos deben recibir el mismo trato y tener las mismas oportunidades en el sistema.
El principio de equidad: todos los seres humanos deben recibir un trato justo en todas las interacciones del sistema.
El principio de transparencia: todas las interacciones deben ser totalmente transparentes.
El principio de abundancia: el dinero nunca debe ser una barrera para acceder al sistema, participar en la gobernanza, en los tribunales o abandonar el sistema.
El principio de amabilidad: todos los sistemas y procesos deben ser amables.
El principio de no hacer daño: todos los sistemas y procesos no deben causar daño a ningún ser humano.
El principio de las 7 generaciones: todos los sistemas deben construirse pensando en las próximas 7 generaciones.
El principio de divertirse en el camino: la forma de llegar es tan importante como el lugar al que nos dirigimos.
El principio de soberanía - cada humano en el sistema tiene su propia voluntad y no será coaccionado para actuar en contra de su voluntad.
El principio de la libertad de expresión - cada ser humano es libre de expresar sus ideas, su desacuerdo, siempre que no sean odiosas ni incitantes.
El principio de libertad de reunión - las personas del sistema tienen la libertad de formar colectivos para defender o compartir sus ideas, siempre que no violen otros principios.
El principio del espíritu de la ley - el espíritu de una ley debe prevalecer sobre la letra de la misma
El principio de neutralidad lingüística - ninguna lengua del sistema debe estar en desventaja con respecto a las demás.
El principio de parsimonia - en igualdad de condiciones, siempre debe prevalecer la solución más sencilla a un problema.
El principio de administración ambiental - teniendo en cuenta el uso responsable y la protección de nuestro planeta.
El principio de descentralización - deben tomarse todas las precauciones para que los sistemas queden protegidos contra la centralización y el control.
El principio de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos - Proof of Humanity se adhiere explícitamente a esta declaración hasta que exista una versión descentralizada.
1 Like
Lovely work! Really simple and deep.
I would add "Recursive Improvement" to remain as a the best option in an ecosystem that will sure grow to present many options.
Idea taken from the Asilomar AI Principles.
1 Like
So you say submitting all of them into a single poll simultaneously? Or one after the other?
Also, I’ve discovered that there is a polling tool right here in the forum. We could use that as well.
1/2. PoH Principles amount of interest. Which principles you think are more prioritary?
- The principle of humanity - humans must always come first.
- The principle of equality - all humans must be treated equally and have equal opportunity on the system.
- The principle of fairness - all humans must be treated fairly in all interactions on the system.
- The principle of transparency - all interactions must be fully transparent.
- The principle of abundance - money must never be a barrier to access the system, participation in governance, tribunals, or leaving the system.
- The principle of kindness - all systems and processes must be kind.
- The principle of do no harm - all systems and processes must not create harm to any human.
- The principle of 7 generations - all systems must be built with the next 7 generations in mind
- The principle of having fun along the way - the way we get there is as important as where we are going
- The principle of sovereignty - each human in the system has its own will and will not be coerced to act against its will.
- The principle of free speech - each human is free to express their ideas, their dissent, as long as they are not hateful nor inciteful.
- The principle of free assembly - persons in the system have the freedom to form collectives to defend or share their ideas, as long they do not violate other principles.
- The principle of the spirit of the law - the spirit of a law must take precedence over the letter of the law
- The principle of language neutrality - no language in the system should be a disadvantage over the other.
- The principle of parsimony - all things being equal, the simplest solution to a problem should always prevail.
- The principle of environmental stewardship - taking into account the responsible use and protection of our planet.
- The principle of decentralization - all precautions should be taken to ensure systems remain protected against centralisation and control.
- The principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Proof of Humanity explicitly endorses this declaration until such time a decentralised version is available.
0 voters
2/2. PoH Principles least interest. Which principles you think should be removed or reconsidered for later stages?
- The principle of humanity - humans must always come first.
- The principle of equality - all humans must be treated equally and have equal opportunity on the system.
- The principle of fairness - all humans must be treated fairly in all interactions on the system.
- The principle of transparency - all interactions must be fully transparent.
- The principle of abundance - money must never be a barrier to access the system, participation in governance, tribunals, or leaving the system.
- The principle of kindness - all systems and processes must be kind.
- The principle of do no harm - all systems and processes must not create harm to any human.
- The principle of 7 generations - all systems must be built with the next 7 generations in mind
- The principle of having fun along the way - the way we get there is as important as where we are going
- The principle of sovereignty - each human in the system has its own will and will not be coerced to act against its will.
- The principle of free speech - each human is free to express their ideas, their dissent, as long as they are not hateful nor inciteful.
- The principle of free assembly - persons in the system have the freedom to form collectives to defend or share their ideas, as long they do not violate other principles.
- The principle of the spirit of the law - the spirit of a law must take precedence over the letter of the law
- The principle of language neutrality - no language in the system should be a disadvantage over the other.
- The principle of parsimony - all things being equal, the simplest solution to a problem should always prevail.
- The principle of environmental stewardship - taking into account the responsible use and protection of our planet.
- The principle of decentralization - all precautions should be taken to ensure systems remain protected against centralisation and control.
- The principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Proof of Humanity explicitly endorses this declaration until such time a decentralised version is available.
0 voters
1 Like
Mostly looks good but a few comments:
The problem here is “never”, in its current form POH would violate this principle (as you need a deposit). I would prefer it to be written has:
“The principle of abundance - the system tries to minimize the disadvantage that users without access to capital could suffer in term of access to the system, participation in governance, tribunals, or leaving the system.”
The issue with banning “hateful” ideas is that who would decide what is “hateful”? I think systems are better designed at classifying different kind of speech to prevent people from being exposed to speech they don’t want to be exposed to.
I would propose “The principle of free speech - each human is free to express their ideas, their dissent even if they are unpopular as long as they are expressed in appropriate places” (free speech doesn’t mean you can’t get banned for spamming a forum, it means you can create your own if you want to)
This would also be violated by the current system.
English is the de facto global language and we definitely need a unified language for POH. Otherwise the registration phrase wouldn’t work (so the only way to do so without loss of security would be turn it into a sentence which doesn’t mean anything which would actually make the UX for English speakers worse without improving the UX of non-English speakers). We would also need to translate proposal in all existing languages which would be impractical.
It seems too strong of a position. I would argue that it is definitely moral to create harm to prevent harm to others. Like imagine that someone has a gun and is about to shoot people. In this case it would be ethical to punch them to take their gun (which would create harm). The way it is worded would actually enter in conflict with principle 18. (which includes protection in multiple of its points which is impossible if people can’t defend themselves or others).
“all systems and processes must not create unfair harm to any human.” may be better
What does it mean? “fully” would probably mean that privacy is not allowed. So I would at least remove the “fully”. In general you want transparency for those in power but privacy for those who are not.
2 Likes
We should minimize this to how PoH governance works/should work. Don’t make this a Ferengi rule book for morality or oath of offending/defending. We should Chain the Gov’t and collectives, not the individuals…
17) A contract is a contract is a contract... but only between Ferengi
