I see where he's coming from, the proposed satelites would need the consent from the mentioned sectors of the state. Plus I know that the closest thing a military Asgardia might ever have would be the Asteroid and Space miners, proposed satelites that would smash such objects to pieces would not be given to a possible Military that is created.

We need to be sure about any project we provide in the future don't be used or stolen to be converted in weapons. We need to be sure all the tools, ideas and concepts be use to protect the earth only. We need a security protocol to avoid any damage for the earth and avoid bad hands have access. We have the good intention to provide good tools but a military always find the other way and could sell it to the wrong people. This is not paranoia, this is the reality and we are exposed.

So you think military background would be a bad thing? That is ridiculously wrong and hilarious. Why do you think the armed forces exist? Just to defend, liberate and hold? No, nutcracker. In times of peace, the military are the most effective way to help citizens (that pass through them) to obtain good values and habits that not only move them upwards the economic social hierarchy (with their work and time derived by their new work ethic) but also the whole direct group. There's no better leader than a ex-military. I come from a military school created for the first Portuguese republic. Centenary! And most of the ex-students where actively moving up the hierachy and through politics helping the whole country succeed. No wonder the school motto and or life motto where respectively: "Create citizens useful for our motherland." "When there's an will, there is a way." If you hate military because personal reasons... It is your own problem, don't mix thing up.

Las mejores organizaciones son las que tienen una estructura mas plana donde entre el líder principal y el ciudadano común no existan mas de tres niveles.

Salut, étant chef de projets, il y a trop d'intermédiaire, trop d autorisation a avoir. En premiers a qui doit ton parler du projet, qui ou quel groupe sera compétent et sur quel base un projet sera accepter ou refuser ? Pour garder une démocratie direct ( autant que possibles). Je propose plutôt de fusionné la première étape avec la deuxième. Autrement dit, on présente le projet devant un «conseil» où le nombre de votes sera egal entre tout les participants, donc n brouillon une delagation : - de scientifiques - des militaires ( ils sont indispensables toutes les technologies de pointe ont des financements et utilité défensive, scientifiques, ect, constitution ou pas on ne peux pas oublier notre passé car il façonne l avenir, mais la sa devient politique lol). - un conseil de citoyens éclairé ( qu'ils puissent comprendre le projet, donc multidisciplinaire comme tu le proposé) - un conseil de juristes ( propriété intellectuelle, droit de brevet, ect pour parer au éventualité) - un conseil financements ( sans argent pas de gros. Il faut parer a tous les cas de projets présente. J'utilise la methode de gestion agile, prendre un projets qui sera livrer dans 6 mois c'est trop long, il faut découpé le projet faire des sprint bref «agiliser» chaque point de développement doit être modifiable pour s adapté. Il faut pensé au grand nombre de projets qui seront présenté, donc il faut garder aussi la première étape mais en la modifiant, c'est à dire organisé un traitement par exemple en 3 pôles : - projets nécessaires au développement de la nation - projets innovants - projets utile au futur Une équipe peux traités les dossiers soumis a la condition d être multidisciplinaire. (Que l'on pourrai basé sur la délégation du deuxième groupe, mais en regardants bien a l allocation des ressources du personnel). Voilà Après ce pavé, tu as mon idée brouillon pour la validation d un projets. Pour la phase de développement il faut agiliser, mais sa donne du.travail, je serai ravi d en discuter, attention on ne pourra donné qu'une vision globale car on ne traite pas de la manière un projet sécurité qu'un projet innovation. Sa reste un brouillon fait après manger, je serai ravis d en discuté, de modifier et/ou refaire la présentation. Logan

Passer à la langue suivante : françaisHi, being project manager, there is too much intermediary, too much authorization to have. First, who should talk to you about the project, who or which group will be competent and on what basis will a project be accepted or rejected? To keep a direct democracy (as much as possible). I propose instead to merge the first step with the second. In other words, we present the project in front of a "council" where the number of votes will be equal between all the participants, thus n draft a delagation: - scientists - military (they are indispensable all advanced technologies have funding and defensive utility, scientific, ect, constitution or not we can not forget our past because it shapes the future, but the sa becomes political lol). - an enlightened council of citizens (that they can understand the project, so multidisciplinary as you proposed it) - a council of lawyers (intellectual property, patent right, ect to deal with the eventuality) - a financial advice (without money no big money. It is necessary to avoid all cases of present projects. I use the agile management method, take a project that will be delivered in 6 months is too long, it has to cut the project make short sprint "agiliser" each development point must be editable for s adapted. We must think about the large number of projects that will be presented, so we must also keep the first step but by modifying it, ie organized a treatment for example in 3 poles: - projects necessary for the development of the nation - innovative projects - projects useful for the future A team can process the submitted files on the condition of being multidisciplinary. (That one could be based on the delegation of the second group, but with regard to the allocation of the resources of the personnel). Here after this pavement, you have my idea for the validation of a project. For the development phase it is necessary to agilize, but its work, I will be happy to discuss it, attention can be given only a global vision because one does not treat in the way a project safety that a project innovation. It remains a rough draft after eating, I will be happy to discuss, modify and / or redo the presentation. Logan