Is governance just in the eye of the beholder (e.g. the corporation) or does it have to satisfy the complete social context?
With all due respect to Frank's disagreement in a parallel discussion, I think Participants agree to Governance because they have Goals and those Goals are more likely to be satisfied within the Governance Framework than outside it. If I have less than charitable goals, my Governance will be strictly to creating an environment where I have the competitive edge -- if I can get away with it. At some point, my Goals may include minimizing the retribution of others, in which case more of the previously ignored social context has a bearing.
Note, my Governance strategy could be to have me outside anyone else's Governance Framework.
Ken
On Sep 10, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Don Flinn wrote:
[snip]
Second item - Before Friday, I hadn't contemplated your example of governance for entities with evil goals. However, after a some thought, I agree that governance is about satisfying the goals of the participants, whether the goals are good or bad for society. (How good is defined is a philosophical question left for Plato and others to struggled with.) However, since the Commons is one of the participants (an interested party) the example of governance related to an evil-doer entity brings up a question. Is governance just in the eye of the beholder (e.g. the corporation) or does it have to satisfy the complete social context? Or stated another way, is a local governance incomplete without consideration of the goals of all the participants in its social context?
Don
[snip]
--
Don Flinn
President
Mansurus LLC
e-mail:
Tel: 781-856-7230
http://mansurus.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
smime.p7s
