True. And they can switch around. It remains up to them.
Primarily because everything is “open-source”. The reasoning for doing anything and everything is not only formally stated, but required to be upheld as stated. No matter what you are doing, the reason for it must be satisfied. Vague ambiguity of purpose or intent is strongly avoided (verification of satisfaction is usually required). And then on top of that, everything is always open for deeper inquiry to investigate better reasoning. Usually the initial reasoning for doing anything isn’t the best reasoning and often isn’t the best plan, so in light of new ideas or information, change is but one formal discussion away. A single person in a single day can potentially change the entire game … other than the SAM Constitution.
For some, but not others. A SAM Co-op only requires 4 members to initiate the fundamental structure, after that, it is a matter of maintaining representation, awareness, and resources. Just as parts of your body would atrophy if the nerves and blood become too restricted, if a group grows too large, people become too unattached to what is really going on and why. Purpose in living gets confused and conflated when people are not involved in the reasoning or not properly represented. How attached do you feel to Congress?
Initially it is by whatever reasoning the initial members can muster up. It doesn’t really matter why or even how stupid they might be. After the structure is formed decisions begin taking on rationality and who moves into what position is up to that rationale. And of course, what rationale is first chosen is seldom the best, so later it can all change again … but always via the congressional/parliamentary procedure of open debate.
Since MIJOT, Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time, is the “supreme goal”, all reasoning is based upon that concern. And any reasoning that proves to be better at achieving that goal gets immediately implemented. Voting or even your “random assignments” can be a part of the better reasoning concerning many issues, as long as the highest authority remains as the SAM structure. In other words, voting or random assignments can only be implimented as long as the proper reasoning proved them to be the better way to handle the specific situation.
Between the required open-source reasoning and the goal of MIJOT, the group becomes very stable. The only issue is that new comers come from such an extremely different society, they can’t quite comprehend it for a while. Once accustom to it, it is almost too easy. People expect problems that never arise; (e.g. “Don’t I have to campaign or gather a petition?” - Not at all).