@h I think you'd really enjoy this ^ if you haven't already read it

@gc Sorry, I missed the link?

@gc Just skimmed through it. I think I mostly agree. Fast fordward to the article conclusions:

Delegation, Accountability, Distribution, Allocation, Rotation, Diffusion, Access.

If you take of each of these tenets, or basic principles, you come back to the same I was saying earlier.

You can't get all these at once without both technical and political competence.

@h while I think that setting up an organization in a way that promotes and cultivates those qualities among its members takes technical and political competence, participating in such an organization does not.

@gc That's true, of course. The problem I've seen with participating without actual involvement (meaning putting actual political and technical work into it, not just voting and debating) often becomes counterproductive.
Just an observation in my experience.

The person with absolutely no skin in the game can afford to naysay, support pointless things that don't make any sense,
debate bikeshedding endlessly, and never contribute anything other than just participating.

@gc It works for a while, and then the people who do the actual work leave in disgust.

I've seen this happen countless times.

@gc If a representative has a mandate from their community and that representative is rotated, and there is an assembly of knowledgeable people each of whom are trusted by and accountable to their respective communities, that could work.

But that person shouldn't be a sysadmin, who's by definition someone who works in a technical capacity. A sysadmin is effectively a BDFL of the instance they manage.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.