Hi Will:
I would say that the situation is actually pretty open, if still a bit
chaotic or disorganised. As you indicated, a core group started
things, and for the most part these people are still around and have
the power to write checks and so forth. However, it's not as if they
rule with an iron fist or anything like that. Most discussions seem
to happen in public mailing lists, and the people who have the power
to sign checks seem pretty adamant that that's where "decisions" are
made too. Personally, I'd like to see a clearer roadmap and mission
statement and so on, but I tend to assume that that's coming with some
time, not that the organisation is rigidly against change! In the
mean time, my sense is that "position" isn't necessarily that
important to P2PU.
As evidence to at least consider, here's a course from a central
figure at P2PU (Philipp Schmid):
http://p2pu.org/general/open-governance ; and here's one that I'm
co-facilitating this winter:
http://p2pu.org/general/open-governance-and-learning. I don't think
this is all "empty talk", but rather, that it all feeds back into the
way P2PU works. Here's a conversation between Philipp and Benjamin
Mako Hill where you might compare their views and styles:
http://ia700204.us.archive.org/13/items/MakoAndPhilippDiscussOpenGovernance…
(I'm just listening now myself.)
I don't really know enough about your critiques to really understand
what you take issue with, or what sort of difficulties you've run
into. But the way you're talking makes it sound like P2PU took a crap
on your table. I suspect that's not really the case, and also that
things aren't as one-sided as you made them out to be.
Joe