the use of Liquid Democracy with delegations as a form of self-governance for AVNode

• each of the AVnodes / groups has a representative
• the representative should ideally be appointed by the individual group in a democratic fashion
• all representatives have equal voting rights within AVnode
• all decisions are made by voting
• in case a voter does not have time/knowledge/motivation to take part in all/any/some voting, he or she can always declare a delegate to vote for him or her
• a delegate is someone among the other voters that the voter trusts in making the right decision for him or her
• a voter can have different delegates for different votings/topics
• for every voting the voter can decide if he wants to vote
• if the voter doesn't vote, the representative delegate's vote counts for him/her
• every voter has the right to suggest a proposal
• the proposal is published and opened for general discussion with a defined deadline (needs to be managed by us)
• within the deadline all voters should take part in the voting as described before

to make this system work, all delegations, topics, deadlines and votings have to be publicly available to all voters at all times.

as i said before, this is just a suggestion to finally have some structure for AVnode that's also not too structural to be boring or annoying. i know that people want a structure, we've been talking about it for three years already. i suggest we try something like liquid democracy - this idea is just based on my own personal experiences.

the use of Liquid Democracy with delegations as a form of self-governance for AVNode

• each of the AVnodes / groups has a representative
• the representative should ideally be appointed by the individual group in a democratic fashion
• all representatives have equal voting rights within AVnode
• all decisions are made by voting
• in case a voter does not have time/knowledge/motivation to take part in all/any/some voting, he or she can always declare a delegate to vote for him or her
• a delegate is someone among the other voters that the voter trusts in making the right decision for him or her
• a voter can have different delegates for different votings/topics
• for every voting the voter can decide if he wants to vote
• if the voter doesn't vote, the representative delegate's vote counts for him/her
• every voter has the right to suggest a proposal
• the proposal is published and opened for general discussion with a defined deadline (needs to be managed by us)
• within the deadline everyone can openly discuss the topic and may vote if the topic is worth voting for or too unimportant (needs to be managed by us)
• if a defined quorum of people who are interested in voting for the topic is reached, the topic is officially open for a voting
• if the quorum is not reached, the topic is dropped
• if the quorum is reached, the topic has to be reformulated to a valid voting (YES/NO, A B or C, whatever) with a voting deadline
• within the deadline all voters should take part in the voting as described before

to make this system work, all delegations, topics, deadlines and votings have to be publicly available to all voters at all times.

as i said before, this is just a suggestion to finally have some structure for AVnode that's also not too structural to be boring or annoying. i know that people want a structure, we've been talking about it for three years already. i suggest we try something like liquid democracy - this idea is just based on my own personal experiences.

the use of Liquid Democracy with delegations as a form of self-governance for AVNode

• each of the AVnodes / groups has a representative
• the representative should ideally be appointed by the individual group in a democratic fashion
• all representatives have equal voting rights within AVnode
• all decisions are made by voting
• in case a voter does not have time/knowledge/motivation to take part in all/any/some voting, he or she can always declare a delegate to vote for him or her
• a delegate is someone among the other voters that the voter trusts in making the right decision for him or her
• a voter can have different delegates for different votings/topics
• for every voting the voter can decide if he wants to vote
• if the voter doesn't vote, the representative delegate's vote counts for him/her
• every voter has the right to suggest a
• proposalthe proposal topic to vote onthe topic
is published and opened for general discussion with a defined deadline (needs to be managed by us)
• within the deadline everyone can openly discuss the topic and may vote if the topic is worth voting for or too unimportant (needs to be managed by us)
• if a defined quorum of people who are interested in voting for the topic is reached, the topic is officially open for a voting
• if the quorum is not reached, the topic is dropped
• if the quorum is reached, the topic has to be reformulated to a valid voting (YES/NO, A B or C, whatever) with a voting deadline
• within the deadline all voters should take part in the voting as described before

to make this system work, all delegations, topics, deadlines and votings have to be publicly available to all voters at all times. the pirate party of germany used their own developed software Liquid Feedback / LQFB for that - which makes sense in a group that has thousands of members. for AVnode perhaps some other solution would be possible.

as i said before, this is just a suggestion to finally have some structure for AVnode that's also not too structural to be boring or annoying. i know that people want a structure, we've been talking about it for three years already. i suggest we try something like liquid democracy - this idea is just based on my own personal experiences.

the use of Liquid Democracy with delegations as a form of self-governance for AVNode

• each of the AVnodes / groups has a representative
• the representative should ideally be appointed by the individual group in a democratic fashion
• all representatives have equal voting rights within AVnode

• all decisions are made by voting

• in case a voter does not have time/knowledge/motivation to take part in all/any/some voting, he or she can always declare a delegate to vote for him or her

• a delegate is someone among the other voters that the voter trusts in making the right decision for him or her
• a voter can have different delegates for different votings/topics
• for every voting the voter can decide if he wants to vote

• if the voter doesn't vote, the representative delegate's vote counts for him/her

• every voter has the right to suggest a topic to vote on

• the topic is published and opened for general discussion with a defined deadline
• within the deadline everyone can openly discuss the topic and may vote if the topic is worth voting for or too unimportant
• if a defined quorum of people who are interested in voting for the topic is reached, the topic is officially open for a voting
• if the quorum is not reached, the topic is dropped
• if the quorum is reached, the topic has to be reformulated to a valid voting (YES/NO, A B or C, whatever) with a voting deadline
• within the deadline all voters should take part in the voting as described before

to make this system work, all delegations, topics, deadlines and votings have to be publicly available to all voters at all times. the pirate party of germany used their own developed software Liquid Feedback / LQFB for that - which makes sense in a group that has thousands of members. for AVnode perhaps some other solution would be possible.

as i said before, this is just a suggestion to finally have some structure for AVnode that's also not too structural to be boring or annoying. i know that people want a structure, we've been talking about it for three years already. i suggest we try something like liquid democracy - this idea is just based on my own personal experiences.

the use of Liquid Democracy with delegations as a form of self-governance for AVNode

• each of the AVnodes / groups has a representative
• the representative should ideally be appointed by the individual group in a democratic fashion
• all representatives have equal voting rights within AVnode

• all decisions are made by voting

• in case a voter does not have time/knowledge/motivation to take part in all/any/some voting, he or she can always declare a delegate to vote for him or her

• a delegate is someone among the other voters that the voter trusts in making the right decision for him or her
• a voter can have different delegates for different votings/topics
• for every voting the voter can decide if he wants to vote

• if the voter doesn't vote, the representative delegate's vote counts for him/her

• every voter has the right to suggest a topic to vote on

• the topic is published and opened for general discussion with a defined deadline
• within the deadline everyone can openly discuss the topic and may vote if the topic is worth voting for or too unimportant
• if a defined quorum of people who are interested in voting for the topic is reached, the topic is officially open for a voting
• if the quorum is not reached, the topic is dropped
• if the quorum is reached, the topic has to be reformulated to a valid voting (YES/NO, A B or C, whatever) with a voting deadline
• within the deadline all voters should take part in the voting as described before

to make this system work, all delegations, topics, deadlines and votings have to be publicly available to all voters at all times. the pirate party of germany used their own developed software Liquid Feedback / LQFB for that - which makes sense in a group that has thousands of members. for AVnode perhaps some other solution would be possible.

as i said before, this is just a suggestion to finally have some structure for AVnode that's also not too structural to be boring or annoying. i know that people want a structure, we've been talking about it for three years already. i suggest we try something like liquid democracy - this idea is just based on my own personal experiences.

the use of Liquid Democracy with delegations as a form of self-governance for AVNode