Back

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

I really really wish people would actually read this the whole way through instead of just skimming through it. it's absolutely worth the read

@gc I haven't read through the whole piece, so forgive me if I comments are premature.

It sounds right to assert that all groups have structure. That agrees with philosophical holism: entities don't become organized; they're always organized.

Do you think what's needed is more accountability? I'd guess the only way to create it is to use a formal structure; keeping an informal elite accountable seems to be the big hangup.

I'll continue reading now.

@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.

@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.

@gc I read something similar recently (warning: Medium) from one of the folks working on CoBudget:

https://medium.com/ouishare-connecting-the-collaborative-economy/cut-the-bullshit-organizations-with-no-hierarchy-dont-exist-f0a845e73a80