I think this is a fairly thoughtful document, thanks for writing it, and for sharing it here.
For current projects (changing disclosure levels): Anyone can propose changing the disclosure level of a project.
Secret → Private: To move a project from secret to private, all members of the project and the appointed infohazard coordinator must agree.
Private → Public: Before making public any information, all members of the project must agree. Also, members must consult external trusted sources and get a strong majority of approval.
My first impression about this is worrying.
The move from Secret → Private sounds like decision-by-consensus. I am against decisions-by-consensus inside any organization that needs to move fast and get things done. My first alternative proposal would be that one person owns the decision. Failing that, maybe something like any group of N people can vote to veto the decision-maker’s decision, such that the decision-maker needs to get a certain level of buy-in.
Consulting external trusted sources sounds like a very slow-moving process, the sort of thing where something you expect to take days actually takes months. A rule we often assume at Lightcone is that literally all external parties will move too slow for us and we should try to minimize occasions where we are blocked on them. I don’t think that the idea stated in the OP is a bad one, but I might try to have the external parties agree to be voters in this, and have them agree to get back to you within e.g. 1 month of being requested to make their decision.
Broadly, I’d also add another point:
I’ve found that it’s very difficult to make strategic decisions if you have nobody to talk to about them. It currently sounds like you plan for your CEO (Connor) to have a lot of secret information that no other single person in the organization has access to all-of. My guess is that will make it very hard for Connor to think about the entire strategic landscape, because there will be no social context in which he can think about it all with another person. I would suggest having two people know about all secrets within the org, to the best of your ability.
Broadly I don’t really know what to do about secrecy and find it very costly personally, so don’t take any of my points too strongly.
On first pass, I didn’t pickup if this is always Connor or can be different people in Conjecture. Anyway, I think whoever it is should consider it an active responsibility to be very responsive to anyone’s requests or queries. The default thing that happens when there’s a person with massive power over a project but isn’t in constant contact with the project, is that they slow everything down. Like if it were my job, I might be like…
Okay, I really don’t know, there’s a bunch of factors. I don’t know if the infohazard coordinator is actually on the team of the project they’re coordinator for, I don’t know how many projects they’re coordinator for, and I don’t know how fast requests need to be answered. Nonetheless, here’s the kind of rule-set I can imagine making sense.
If anyone ever asks about a private project “Can I share with Person X” I should always answer same day, and maybe set a target to always answer in <3 hours.
If anyone wants to add a collaborator to a secret project, I should always give them an answer within 2 days.
If anyone wants to change the secrecy level of a project, I give my take on it within 5 working days, and generally should either say “no” or should set in-motion the plan to move it out of that secrecy level within 2 weeks of the initial request.
My guess is without this sort of ruleset, without the infohazard coordinator taking on the responsibility to respond extremely quickly whenever they’re blocking a research team, at some point folks will be asking “Why did Project X not get finished 2 months faster?” and the answer will be “Well it was too costly for us to get in-sync with the infohazard coordinator about who we could share on this project because they were always busy with other projects, so we ended up not sharing our work with Alice, Bob, or Charlie until much later than we otherwise would have, and each time we did we got a big speed up.”
I think this is a fairly thoughtful document, thanks for writing it, and for sharing it here.
My first impression about this is worrying.
The move from Secret → Private sounds like decision-by-consensus. I am against decisions-by-consensus inside any organization that needs to move fast and get things done. My first alternative proposal would be that one person owns the decision. Failing that, maybe something like any group of N people can vote to veto the decision-maker’s decision, such that the decision-maker needs to get a certain level of buy-in.
Consulting external trusted sources sounds like a very slow-moving process, the sort of thing where something you expect to take days actually takes months. A rule we often assume at Lightcone is that literally all external parties will move too slow for us and we should try to minimize occasions where we are blocked on them. I don’t think that the idea stated in the OP is a bad one, but I might try to have the external parties agree to be voters in this, and have them agree to get back to you within e.g. 1 month of being requested to make their decision.
Broadly, I’d also add another point:
I’ve found that it’s very difficult to make strategic decisions if you have nobody to talk to about them. It currently sounds like you plan for your CEO (Connor) to have a lot of secret information that no other single person in the organization has access to all-of. My guess is that will make it very hard for Connor to think about the entire strategic landscape, because there will be no social context in which he can think about it all with another person. I would suggest having two people know about all secrets within the org, to the best of your ability.
Broadly I don’t really know what to do about secrecy and find it very costly personally, so don’t take any of my points too strongly.
Another thought:
On first pass, I didn’t pickup if this is always Connor or can be different people in Conjecture. Anyway, I think whoever it is should consider it an active responsibility to be very responsive to anyone’s requests or queries. The default thing that happens when there’s a person with massive power over a project but isn’t in constant contact with the project, is that they slow everything down. Like if it were my job, I might be like…
Okay, I really don’t know, there’s a bunch of factors. I don’t know if the infohazard coordinator is actually on the team of the project they’re coordinator for, I don’t know how many projects they’re coordinator for, and I don’t know how fast requests need to be answered. Nonetheless, here’s the kind of rule-set I can imagine making sense.
If anyone ever asks about a private project “Can I share with Person X” I should always answer same day, and maybe set a target to always answer in <3 hours.
If anyone wants to add a collaborator to a secret project, I should always give them an answer within 2 days.
If anyone wants to change the secrecy level of a project, I give my take on it within 5 working days, and generally should either say “no” or should set in-motion the plan to move it out of that secrecy level within 2 weeks of the initial request.
My guess is without this sort of ruleset, without the infohazard coordinator taking on the responsibility to respond extremely quickly whenever they’re blocking a research team, at some point folks will be asking “Why did Project X not get finished 2 months faster?” and the answer will be “Well it was too costly for us to get in-sync with the infohazard coordinator about who we could share on this project because they were always busy with other projects, so we ended up not sharing our work with Alice, Bob, or Charlie until much later than we otherwise would have, and each time we did we got a big speed up.”