Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/sop
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
Came up with another good definition consistent with others we’ve made up in SoP: A protocol is an agreement about how to agree. Unlike our broader “engineered argument” definition this is an optimistic one that hopes for a measure of finality and a win-win happily-ever-after outcome of arguments. It also biases for liveness. You can plan for agreeing to disagree rather than ghosting or unilateral exiting. It puts _intent to agree_ ie mutual good faith, first. Malice and bad faith are treated as anomalous rather than default. Protocols aim to capture rewards of good faith coordination before hardening against malice. If you can’t capture the upside, there’s no reason to defend against malice etc.
3 replies
0 recast
14 reactions
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
The dumbest fights, including domestic squabbles between couples, usually occur because nobody protocolized the argument first. This is usually a speculative heavy lift done as an act of faith on the presumption of intent to agree. This need not be a matter of verbal meta-rules. Any systematicity can help. For eg putting up good shelving turns a dumb argument about sharing unstructured space into a smart one about sharing shelf space. A lot of “organizing” talent is a talent for creating and holding space for protocols to emerge in. When nobody in a situation is good at organizing (or has the energy to organize), you can get stupid fights where no fighting or compromise is even necessary. Organizing and protocol scaffolding are forms of algorithmic kindness. Good organizers are peacemaking bodhisattvas 😇
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
rafa
@rafa
This feels too optimistic for Kafka protocols,,, especially those in which coercion is part of the play
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dave Marley
@davemarley
Is there any distinction between a protocol and a constitution under this definition of “protocol” (which I think is a good one, by the way)?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
