LegalHub: theory: Difference between revisions

LegalHub: theory (view source)

Revision as of 16:04, 22 November 2020

514 bytes added , 22 November 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,357

edits

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 Or is it the ''opposite''? Is the ''process'' it purports to fix an adaptation, an [[extended phenotype]] upon which the whole [[rent-seeking]] infrastructure depends to survive?
-Which way does the causal arrow flow?  ''Who'' domesticated ''whom''?
+Which way does the causal arrow flow?  ''Who'' domesticated ''whom''? ''[[Contract negotiation]] is not a profit centre for anyone but its practitioners''.
-Bear in mind that staying with this process is not a zero-cost option. This infrastructure is ''monstrously'' expensive. Every year, it costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. ''For each firm''.
-Spend your good money here, instead of throwing it after the bad money you’ve spent there.
-''[[Contract negotiation]] is not a profit centre for anyone but its practitioners''.
 ===What to do===
-Design a system with [[feedback loop]]s that push us towards a simplified, standardised centre, that emphasises transparency and commonality, not proprietary technology. In essence, a GitHub for legal terms:
+Staying with this process is not a zero-cost option. This infrastructure is ''monstrously'' expensive. Every year, it costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. ''For each firm''. Spend your good money here, instead of throwing it after the bad money you’ve spent there.
-*'''A centralised hub''' with free, unlimited access for everyone whether as a user or a contributor.
-*'''A phased approach''' moving gradually from traditional text-based contracts — how folks do things now, for better or worse — to networked, authenticated smart contracts.
+Design an open source, open-architecture system with [[feedback loop]]s that push us towards a simplified, standardised centre, that emphasises transparency and commonality, not proprietary technology. In essence, a [https://github.com/ GitHub] for legal terms.
+*'''A centralised hub''' with free, unlimited access for everyone whether as a user or a contributor.
+*'''Transparent''': Fully version-controlled, transparent — allow people to take, adapt, copy any iteration.
+*''''Permissive, open-architecture''': ''We are hopeless at predicting the future''. Design the architecture to be permissive, developable according to evolving need and use, rather designing for an expected future structure from the outset.
+*'''Ownership model''': Charity-owned. Model: [https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Wikimedia Foundation].
+*'''A phased approach''': Recognise that development will be slow. Start with what we have: traditional text-based contracts — how folks do things ''now'', for better or worse — expect it to a fully digital, networked, authenticated smart contracts world if that is the best fit.
+*'''Tokenised digital wallets''': No central repository of sensitive data. Allow peer to peer.
 :*'''Day''' 1: Purely a text repository to enable people to do more easily what they already do today.
-:*'''Day 2''': Expect development to be sloooooooow at first. So design a permissive, developable architecture rather than designing a fixed structure now with an future state in mind. ''We are hopeless at predicting the future''.
+:*'''Day 2''': Online networked interaction: real-time contracting.
 :*'''Day 100''': Expect usage to develop the system iteratively, like an adaptive Ouija board, according to demand.
 *'''Give content away'''. Freely. Allow people to use all of your stuff without limit. The more of your stuff is on there the greater the chance it will become a standard. Keep no rights. Claim no [[copyright]]. This is a community resource. This is the [[digital commons]].
 *'''Be permissive''': Allow people to copy, derive, refine and improve without limit. Assuming it is version controlled you can keep your model. But allow the world to make it better.
-*'''Get the oppo involved''': Find strategic partners. Especially firms who nominally have conflicting interests to yours. So: (i) competitors; (ii) buy-side firms; (iii) small firms; (iv) users.
+*'''Get the oppo involved''': Find strategic partners. Especially firms who nominally have conflicting interests to yours. So: competitors; clients; small firms; individuals.
 *'''Pay for it'''. All of it. Pay a ''lot''. Consider this a down-payment on the savings you will make when you unwind the [[military-industrial complex]] that your outsourcing arrangements have become over 20 years.
-*'''Look to split the bill, but don't quibble''': Encourage other strategic partners to pay too, but no penalties if they don’t. The more you all pay, the better the product will be. Pay to make it easy for anyone to engage and use.
+*'''Look to split the bill, but don’t quibble''': Encourage other strategic partners to pay too, but no penalties if they don’t. The more you all pay, the better the product will be. Pay to make it easy for anyone to engage and use.
 *'''Crowd source to surface the best bits''': use reputation management techniques and the network effect to surface most popular forms, segments, components.
 {{outsourcing}}