Discuss difficulties of defining how much someone is affected by an issue

[rigelrozanski]

@jaekwon

"Consent must be gained from all those significantly affected by a decision in all situations independent of their membership in an organizational structure (aka all largely significant stakeholders have veto)" we talked about but seems extremely difficult to define, and even still... doesn't seem to be easy to make consistent judgement about whether someone deserves something or is being unduly affected by the absence of it. "Those affected by decisions (stakeholders) are informed and have both a voice and weight in decision making" seems iffy too because i can try to come up with situations where i wouldn't agree with it... like if i don't want to share a secret, it affects everyone but sometimes i think it would be right for me to not share it.

[rigelrozanski]

I fully agree that it's not easy and maybe even unrealistic to define how much somebody is affected by an issue, I meant this discussion as more of a vantage point of a goal for a system, not a requirement, obviously that needs to be clarified. Truly, as I see it, systems should probably recognize this goal, but then simultaneously recognize non-pragmatic or unrealistic elements of fully implementing this goal, and settle on a happy medium. As we've discussed previously, that smaller and more focused a community is, the more "flat" the distribution of how affected people are by issues will be - hence greater cohesion through a greater degree of "fair" decision making can likely be achieved the more focused a group is.

if i don't want to share a secret, it affects everyone but sometimes i think it would be right for me to not share it.

Interesting, as in a secret decision which affects everyone? I can't see how this would be legitimate within any system unless is was previously agreed upon by members in that system. To do so "because it would be right to not share it" is assume you have a level of moral superiority to others within that group, which may actually be true, but that shouldn't be assumed but instead verified by the group by them giving you explicit authority to operate with a certain level of secrecy if its agreed upon by the group as being ultimately beneficial.

[rigelrozanski]

From #22

Similar issue as above, what constitutes “significantly affected”; is it the significant stakeholders, and if it is not specifically them, what is the set of specifications to be considered “significantly affected”.

Maybe something like "livelihoods affected to a degree which alters a core pre-existing facet on their life"