In a message dated 1/24/2011 11:47:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, holtzermann17@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
I have, their response is to silence those who speak out. Or to refuse to address the issue.
Would it be possible to bring up specific instances or better still links to the relevant discussions? I don't know what place would be best to continue this discussion, but I assume this thread is OK. If you'd rather, you can email me directly. My interest is mainly to understand the way things have worked at P2PU better.
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.
I personally can't imagine that all problems or disagreements would be solved by the existence of elections or positions, and I think it would be more useful to understand the specific disagreements and problems in their own right. (Unless the disagreement is purely about the existence or non-existence of elections/positions/etc.)
At present, the policy is supposed to be based on "rough consensus" - so if there wasn't a consensus around the issues you brought up, then, yeah, the discussion was likely to just be over. I think the only thing to do in such a case is to go do the relevant work on your own, or do it somewhere else, or work really hard to win people over, or just wait. I don't see it as part of any organisation's responsibility to do everything that "contributors" say or wish.
wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org