Difference between revisions of "Science of Governance/Criteria"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<HR/> | <HR/> | ||
{{:Science of Governance/Criteria/Main Text}} | {{:Science of Governance/Criteria/Main Text}} | ||
=The Principles of SoG= | |||
{{:The Three Principles of the Science of Governance}} | |||
{{PagePostfix | {{PagePostfix | ||
|category_csd=SoG,Design Methodology,Decision | |category_csd=SoG,Design Methodology,Decision | ||
}} | }} | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> |
Revision as of 14:38, 26 July 2022
Having two/thirds() of participants sign off on each of the proposed resolutions/propositions.
Based on Byzantine Fault Tolerance[1], the rule of consensus is going to peg at two/thirds() majority votes.
The Principles of SoG
There are three main principles that is necessary to set up The Science of Governance through self-administered Data.
- Improved Cycle Time of Accountable Data Refinement: Increased frequency of verification and validation for higher data resolution in spacetime, therefore high degree of trust-worthiness.
- Data-driven Accountability: All information sources have explicitly defined identity, including address information for Executable Contracts, Data Collecting Devices, and Data provisioning Agencies.
- Web-enabled Observability:Present Data COntent using one consistent data presentation and abstraction framework, so that data content can be presented using composable and reusable software components and networked display instruments, including Web3D, and Metaverse instruments with minimum application-specific engineering costs.
References
- ↑ Lamport, Leslie (July 1982). "The Byzantine Generals Problem". 4 (3). local page: ACM Transactionson Programming Languages and Systems: 382–401.
Related Pages