- [[#Introduction]] - [[#Rationale]] - [[#Protocolization Strategy]] - [[#Phase Stage One - Conception + Gestation]] - [[#Phase Two - Maturation]] - [[#Phase Three - Reproduction & Decomposition]] - [[#Incremental Evolution]] - [[#Experimentation]] - [[#Grants Program]] ## Introduction The OpenCivics Network’s theory of change posits a transition from civic institutions to civic protocols. This transition involves understanding how existing civic functions are fulfilled, and how these functions can be reconfigured to rely less on ad hoc institutional directorship, and more on schematized playbooks which communities can self-organize around. This process of ‘protocolization’ involves an incremental transition between these two organizational paradigms. OpenCivics will enact this transition within the sandbox conditions of its own initiatives, such as the OpenCivics Grants Program. In doing so, the aim is to actually protocolize a particular civic function, while also informing a more general praxis of protocolization for application beyond the particularities of the Grants Program. This progressive protocolization plan documents the high-level vision and principles of this transition, as well as the anticipated low-level implementation details. As such, this documentation exists to orient external audiences with respect to OpenCivics Network’s organizational strategy, as well as align internal operations of stewards and members. For the latter audience, our intention is to provide information and context to prime members to participate in and inform this transition. ## Rationale The rationale behind this protocolization plan is grounded in a belief that, if given the proper knowledge and tools, communities can self-organize to achieve their needs while minimizing dependence on direction by remote authorities. Within this paradigm of protocolized civics, there will still be a role for centralized leadership and direction, but this hierarchy will be built upon consent and driven by functionalism, rather than stemming from arbitrary power dynamics. If an organizational solution works for one community, it should be reproducible to others, and we believe this transition from institutionally-directed to protocol-based practices will prove conducive to this reproducibility. Similar to existing strategies around progressive decentralization, progressive protocolization runs the risk of the means being mistaken for the end. Where communities seeking to progressively decentralize may end up treating decentralized as an ideal end state, irrespective of how conducive this decentralization is to the needs of said communities, a similar risk accompanies progressive protocolization. In light of this, we intend to assess the prospects of protocolization based on our needs and capacities, rather than insist on protocolization in and of itself. Our fundamental inquiry with this experiment is whether and how protocolization can prove useful to communities, on their own terms. As decentralization may be useful in certain capacities to certain communities, so may protocolization. The work foreseen by this plan regards the situational assessment of such usefulness, and, based on these assessments, the collation of a library of protocols as a contribution to a knowledge commons built on peer-to-peer data storage infrastructure. These protocols can be social, technological, or some combination of both. Examples of social protocols include liberating practices and sociocracy patterns, while technological protocols include communication protocols such as SMTP and governance protocols such as those used by certain DAOs. In protocolizing key activities, we will draw from this wealth of socio-technical knowledge, with the goal of promoting a plurality of solutions for a plurality of communities. ## Protocolization Strategy OpenCivics plans on following a flexible and granular three-phase protocolization strategy. ### Phase Stage One - Conception + Gestation The first stage describes an organizational arrangement primarily directed by centralized institutional leadership. This stage is when initial organizational startup processes will be handled, in order to create a sound foundation to attract and empower a diverse community of local organizers and civic technologists. It is during this phase that the requisite legal, financial and organizational infrastructure will be established to enable OpenCivics, as a centrally directed consortium, to achieve its intended outcomes. ### **Phase Two - Maturation** Once these outcomes are proven achievable under central direction, the protocolization process will commence. The second stage corresponds to this hybrid arrangement of central direction and protocolization. This developmental sequence is intended to avoid situations where protocolization, like decentralization, is treated as an end in itself and is promoted without due consideration of its end usefulness. Once the usefulness of a given OpenCivics initiative, such as the OpenCivics Grants Program, is clearly established under central direction, we will then commence with gradual protocolization of the operations involved. ### **Phase Three - Reproduction & Decomposition** Stage three of the protocolization plan involves the effective operation autonomy of successfully protocolized initiatives. For example, once a given OpenCivics initiative is operationally driven by members of the consortium, and is not operationally dependent on central institutional direction, that initiative will have reached stage three. The end state of the OpenCivics progressive protocolization plan is achieved when not only the various programs of the OpenCivics Network have been protocolized, but network model itself, as an organizing structure for such programs, has been protocolized. ### **Incremental Evolution** One key aspect of this protocolization plan is that the OpenCivic Network and its organizing structure will not monolithically advance from one stage to the next, but will rather advance one aspect at a time, with different programs and initiatives protocolizing their operations at different rates. This modular approach to protocolization is intended to ensure that each program and initiative has the opportunity to scope and achieve its intended outcomes, and to progressively reconfigure its operations to rely less on ad hoc institutional direction. # Experimentation ## Grants Program While our general philosophy behind protocolization has already been articulated, it may help to elaborate on our intentions to put this philosophy into practice. Specifically, we plan on progressively protocolizing our grant program, moving away from an arrangement where key operational processes are determined by the ad hoc executive agency, and toward an arrangement where these processes are sufficiently well-defined so as to constitute a protocol for other communities to adopt.  This transition, which we call progressive protocolization, involves the determination of best practices, and the subsequent protocolization of those practices. Seeing as our community grant program has successfully operated three grant rounds already, we can now begin to distill our learnings into prescriptive operational guidelines, or protocols, for others to more efficiently follow in our footsteps. What follows is not a formal roadmap per se, but a hypothetical outline of how a particular project can be protocolized.  So far, many of the processes involved in our grant program have already been algorithmically protocolized, thanks to Allo Protocol and Grants Stack. These tools, as such, allow us to facilitate processes which, if handled manually, would otherwise necessitate a greater degree of ad hoc executive agency on the part of the individuals operating the grant program. In other words, these tools allow certain processes, like the fielding and approval of grant applications, to be conducted in a protocolized manner.  However, beyond the technological affordances of these tools, there remains a significant range of operational processes which require ad hoc executive agency, such as communications strategy to grantees, provision of technical support, and eventual follow-up on grantee milestones. Over the last three grant rounds, we have learned that, while the financial and technical processes involved in the grant program have largely been protocolized, there remain certain social processes which need to be distilled into reproducible procedures.  For example, while we are trying to minimize the role of ad hoc executive agency in the overall shape and direction of the grant program, we acknowledge there will always be a role for executive agency as such. One social process entailed by a community grant program is the selection of individuals to operate the grant program. This process can be protocolized by way of a template governance process whereby a community can select certain members to take operational ownership of the grant program, within a context of well-defined procedures consensually adopted by the community at large. In other words, even protocols have a place for executive agency. Another example for how this executive agency can be preserved, in a manner more protocolized than discretionary, is the adoption of a community-approved rubric for application review. While we have used a rubric in our previous grant rounds, this rubric was spontaneously devised in light of rapidly changing circumstances, rather than pre-emptively adopted by the stakeholder community. This order of operations, of discretionary executive agency paving the way for protocolized executive agency, is intended to efficiently cultivate best practices to be templatized into protocols.  In addition to the selection of operators and the evaluation of applications, the process of impact evaluation can also, to a large extent, be protocolized. Instead of grant round operators navigating impromptu qualitative dialogues with grantees about their milestones, this process can perhaps be formalized into an efficient cadence of transparent reporting. Evaluation can still involve qualitative and quantitative judgement on behalf of operators, who arguably ought to be selected by virtue of their judgment, but the boundaries and capacities of this evaluation can be protocolized into something more reproducibly effective than the ad hoc judgment of these operators.  Overall, these particular developmental trajectories instantiate our general philosophy behind progressive protocolization, a philosophy grounded in the belief that effective practices should be rendered as reproducible as possible, in order to spare our communities the costs of repaving the paths of their predecessors.