In a message dated 1/24/2011 11:47:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
holtzermann17(a)gmail.com writes:
> I think there is a specific form of power (or some other feature) that
> you feel needs to exist within the organisation that doesn't, you (or
> anyone) can bring it up in the community mailing list and get a
> response. You can also contribute to the development process on
> github, or volunteer to help out with the project in any other way.
> If you're simply put off by P2PU's current lack of bureaucratic
> structure, you can wait a bit and give them another try when they
> become a more formal organisation. >>
>
I have, their response is to silence those who speak out. Or to refuse to
address the issue.
I'm not concerned by their "lack of bureaucratic structure". I'm concerned
by their lack of any sort of election process, or any kind of requirement
to listen to the voice of the contributors.
It's one thing to *teach* open governance. I'm quite skeptical of any
organization which does not *have* open governance.
There is no barrier whatsoever, to the implimentation, right now, today,
right this second, of elections and open governance.
The barrier is the people at P2PU do not wish to give up any control or
power over their group.
To me that's a no-starter right there. Period.
I have contributed, I have volunteered. But I won't any longer, until they
institute elections. And that means to *all* positions, not just a few
lower ones.
Will Johnson