1. Decision-making
2. Representation/Voting
3. Resources and Financing
4. Action/Resolution
5. Disputes
6. Threads (flow of information)

{NOTE: (12-2021) I have referred to the affinity groups as af-groups - which is not the right name. I propose calling them the _A-groups_. They are after all, the primary concern for the network as a whole.}

Decision-making

All requirements are first articulated in the leaf groups, the A-groups, and percolate from the outer rim where the people live. These requirements are collated and collected in the manner described above. They also propagate inwards to the extent of their domain of influence, and at each level the decision-making process is the same throughout the tree. The decision dialogue is collected and collated domain-wide by propagating inwards through one’s ancestors, and then distributed to all people in the domain. This only includes their domain of interest (which should be a fairly well-described portion of the tree – a sub-tree).

Example: If the discussion is water in Cape Town, it would directly affect Cape Town and surrounds, and the outlying areas somewhat, but would hardly affect the people in Johannesburg, even though there might be a larger demographic that might be interested and concerned. Another example is fracking in a certain area, like the Karoo, which may have garnered the interest of many outside of that particular area. Requests could be more prosaic as well – such as a source of organic flour, or a desire to install solar energy.

The actual process would be far more dynamic. Basically, the various components necessary to deal with the problem would be generated in parallel. They would then interface and interact with the particular governing model that exists in the environment in which the tree is growing. The appropriate parental group would co-ordinate the effort, collecting information from external sources, like organisations, institutions, etc., and combine them with the input from the affinity groups. Then, after re-organising that information, the parent group would send it back down the pipe for voting from the population. After that, the plan (or plans) are implemented by a project-tree. At each stage, any part of the network may collaborate or offer support in some manner. There might even be opportunities for learning from and/or teaching of others.

The method by which decisions are formulated is incorporated in the tree-like structure of the network, with the additional constraint that all information must propagate up (and down) the tree. It does not “jump”, unless in specific situations. Information propagates inwards by areas of concern or activity, passing up from “family” via “parents” to the next level, the “grandparents”, and so on. The base level must be the source of the decision, though the issue may arise from the leaf – the bottom – or come down from the macro – the parental groups that are collating information on the more global scale – in which case it is distributed all the way down again to the af-groups at the leaves of the tree. All levels above the perimeter level (that is external, or leaf nodes) exist to essentially collate the information that propagates up from the level below, and then document the results.

Representation/Voting

Straight voting on a ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ resolution will be swift and very easily implemented. The reason for declaring domains is to have some ability to manage spurious input to the process. Everyone could or should have his or her say, but some need to be listened to more carefully than others, depending on their direct involvement and their degree of expertise in the particular problem. I may personally appreciate comment and interaction from someone in Sydney, Australia about our current water crises, but he will not have an actual vote in the decisions that the Cape Town tree makes on its water implementation, though he may have an effective vote. The effectiveness of this vote will depend on his participation in the discussion, and his level of knowledge pertaining to the issue. If there are enough effective votes against an implementation, it might behove the Cape Town group to take a deeper look at what they are considering.

An example could be a referendum. Where the referendum is compiled on a wider level than the af-groups, and then voted upon. First a draft of the referendum is composed. That draft is checked by the descendent group – that is, say it was drafted on the great-grandparent level, then it would be passed down to the 10 grandparent groups for affirmation. Once that cycle is completed, the grandparents pass it down to the parent groups, and the process is repeated until it reaches the af-groups. If it passes all the way down, and is agreed upon, it is then voted upon, af-group by af-group.

Once the decision is formulated and agreed upon, it will then be voted on.

Voting is simple within a network. If the votes come from the affinity groups, the leaf nodes, instead of individuals, it will be that much more effective. By using a “group voting” methodology, where the vote is considered in the basic affinity group and only then is propagated into the network, the impacts of personality infringements on the method will be reduced, and also provide some oversight and constraints on the more radical responses. It will also help keep the vote on topic. Using intelligent voting mechanisms, the votes can be more directed and will include more relevant information regarding the issue of concern. The computer can enable these to be registered and collected more effectively.

Due to the availability of record keeping, if there are trends – both negative or positive – they can be more easily identified and tracked before they become conflictual. As the individual members have been personally verified, there will be no need for identity to be verified by strangers each time a vote is required.

Once a decision has been reached, the resources are then organised through the emergence of another tree, which will then be mapped into an organisational structure to deal with the task at hand as efficiently as possible. This subnet, or branch, emerges in the form appropriate to the project. Parts might remain in existence for the duration of the project, while others could morph, or re-arrange and re-emerge, into a similar but different configuration whether of personnel or any other component, for differing stages of the project.

The other is the existence of a group that will oversee the project from cradle to grave, acting as the liaison between the network itself, the particular constituency affected by the project, and the project team. This group monitors the effectiveness of the implementation, and as anyone can also give feedback, there is ongoing monitoring. If the decision is large-scale, there could even be a small tree that would be created to monitor the implementation. This tree could be maintained, and become somewhat institutionalised. This would be an offshoot of the actual project tree.

The records of all decisions, the results thereof, and thus their implementation, will all be on public record and accessible by anyone with a need to know.

If the goal of the project was to complete it as efficiently as possible, instead of the primary goal being financial, and there were minimal distractions beyond the usual ones encountered in any project, the goal of the project as a whole could be achieved more effectively. If the economic pressures that drive these type of projects were minimised – there could be resource constraints, labour constraints, etc. -- the goal of efficiency could be prioritised.

Resources and Financing

The use and distribution of resources and the finances of the network are to be determined by the participants in the network itself. This is done in the same way as the decision-making process. When a request propagates up the tree, it will at some point become necessary to estimate the financial and other resources necessary to accomplish the task. This will be shared with all concerned, and available to any others interested. Opinions will be recorded and taken into consideration, until it has reached a point of stability, whereupon the process can begin. Thinking in terms of a tree that spans the whole network: if this issue covers a wider domain, these budgets could be adjusted because of the scope of the problem.

The members of the tree support the tree through tithing and commercial trading within the tree, as well as providing services and products, when available. Trading begins in the community, spreads to the network, and then spills over to the rest of the globe, thus increasing the wealth of the network itself, while not reducing the net wealth of its participants.

Action/Resolution

A project tree is spawned to deal with the problem, and functions autonomously. It has certain characteristics:

1. Whatever the overall structure, it still contains a “tree” that forms the“civic” connections between all those involved. This is to ensure that everybody in the organisation is represented and has a voice.
2. As the organisation is connected to the network, there will be a “parent group” that will monitor and keep an eye on the organisation on behalf of the network itself – rather like a board of directors in a modern company.
3. The “parent group” will have a tree beneath it that consists of all those who are affected by, and interested in, the project. All those connected will be kept abreast by propagating the information down the original Tree of Life. This is because this parent group will be connected to the parent groups of all the interested members, and these parents will include this topic in their reports back to their specific groups.
4. The leaders and “office” bearers for the project are also designated by the group and will need to be confirmed by those affected (with support from those interested, but not directly impacted).
5. Once the project is complete, the group will disband, unless needed for something else.

Disputes

Disputes are handled in a similar way in which decisions propagate along the tree. If there is a disagreement within an affinity group, then it is incumbent on the group to resolve it. If they are having difficulty, then the sponsors of the those who are in conflict could be brought in, and help mediate the conflict.

If it cannot be resolved in that forum, and the disagreement spans a greater domain than that of the local group — perhaps about a transaction, an agreement, the interpretation of an agreement, a principle, etc. — then it will be brought up at the parents’ meeting, and if it is agreed that it is more generic, but local enough to only affect these 10 groups, then it will be up to the the affected (and interested) groups to debate and decide on the outcome.

Once again, those who are closest and most impacted by the outcome, will be given greater weight and relevance than those who are distant.

If it some issue that deals with an even larger domain, it will be brought to the grandparents’ meeting, and follow the same procedure as for the parents. Once again, it is recursive.

Threads (flow of information)

If it is deemed necessary for certain information/interaction flow to take place along pathways that require swifter response, or have a different geography along which they need to travel, rather than the default tree traversal, it is possible to introduce threads. One could think of them as “shortcuts”, which, as long as they are useful, will be used. However, if something changes, they could then soon disappear.

This introduces another dimension to the Tree, that allows for more expedient and direct communication between the necessary and affected parties.