I am sorry, working in eDem for several years made me bitter and resentful of process where people are allowed to vote on the scope of their own power. Not one time I have seen it go well. Now I am starting to think that there should be a cast where people either decide how the governance should be, or participate in the governance (either by voting or representing or in whatever way the Cast would decide). The point is, who decided the governance system cannot participate in such governance or they will not take the best decision.
The governance is complex. The median works when you have a unidimensional single peak decision making. When you have several alternatives you can use condorcet... when there is a condorcet winner. When there are only two alternatives straight voting is ok, but beware of situations when the question has several alternatives, but they are posed as a series of boolean questions (how much should the limit be? 5D? 0.1D? 1D? ) But then like before pointed out you don't want to silence minorities. Then you need a consent system where people consent to decisions, unless they have real and good rational reasons why not doing so. This is how sociocracy works. But who decides what is a rational reason? People should only participate when they are rationality based... good luck with that. And while this might work among 5-7 people in face to face it will surely not scale up to the thousands of people online when we don't even know who is voting multiple times because they can afford so. And in all this if you implement the governance system badly (read always, as it always needs improvements) it cannot be upgraded because people will vote to keep the maximum of power and the minimum of work for themselves.
/rant
The governance is complex. The median works when you have a unidimensional single peak decision making. When you have several alternatives you can use condorcet... when there is a condorcet winner. When there are only two alternatives straight voting is ok, but beware of situations when the question has several alternatives, but they are posed as a series of boolean questions (how much should the limit be? 5D? 0.1D? 1D? ) But then like before pointed out you don't want to silence minorities. Then you need a consent system where people consent to decisions, unless they have real and good rational reasons why not doing so. This is how sociocracy works. But who decides what is a rational reason? People should only participate when they are rationality based... good luck with that. And while this might work among 5-7 people in face to face it will surely not scale up to the thousands of people online when we don't even know who is voting multiple times because they can afford so. And in all this if you implement the governance system badly (read always, as it always needs improvements) it cannot be upgraded because people will vote to keep the maximum of power and the minimum of work for themselves.
/rant