Re: [ox-en] Re: Free administration
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:53:51 +0100
Hi Graham and all!
At the moment we have a similar thread on the German list. I wonder
when I will start confusing what I and others said where...
Yesterday Graham Seaman wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Stefan Merten wrote:
Yesterday Graham Seaman wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Stefan Merten wrote:
Well in democracies of our brand you need to interrupt the latest
dictator you elected since you have no other chance to get things
changed. But I think it would be far better if more people have a say
in political processes so they don't need to be interrupted just to
change their direction.
Do you think it's possible to make any extrapolations from the way free
software projects are run?
They also have the problem of continuity.
Sure. But here the reason for the problem is inherent in the process
and not an external demand like in representative democracies. I think
this is an important difference.
It sounds like your model of representative democracy is one where there
are elections every x years. But if there is the possibility of
replacement of any representative at any time, so that not all are
normally replaced together, then surely there is no more problem of
continuity than there is when a representative becomes ill?
Though this cures the problem with continuity, this won't be a remedy
to the externality. In fact I think the externality is more of a
problem because it smells like alienation.
There are several models: at one extreme there's Linux, with one person in
overall charge but people rising and filling the 'administrative' posts
as they fall vacant; at the other, more organised elective systems (eg.
Debian), and in between ones with semi-formal rotation (perl, Apache).
Yes, there are a lot of models. I'd be interested in more explanation
about these models - after all I'm not involved in any Free Software
project until now and I *love* to have as much reality-check as
possible.
I'll let someone else do that ;-)
So come on, someone else ;-) .
But isn't oekonux itself (the current
mailing list, not the future society) an example of one model? :-)
I tend to think so :-) .
Isn't it all very anarchist the way being similar to the goal - and
without being an anarchist project :-) :-) .
On the other hand, is this kind of management something that only works
for 'technical' issues (like software), not for things that affect
everybody's daily life?
I don't think that it is limited to technical issues. I think the
point is the structural absence of power. Everyone in a project needs
each other and vice versa. If the self-development of the single
person is the precondition of the self-development of all, and if
we're striving for a common goal, it is in my very own interest that
everyone else can self-develop as much as one can.
I'm not completely following your argument here. What functions in a
gpl-society are both necessary and inherently require power of a kind not
present in software projects?
Ahm... I don't understand your question I guess.
I think we already have the case of the 'minister for water' as an
example: imagining we already lived in a gpl-society, then if Matt's
project were successful, he might be considered minister for water
quality. To have become successful, he would have had to learn a huge
amount about testing water quality;
This might at least be useful.
involved many people in testing water
quality,
I think you missed one important point here. He must be able to lead
people in a way we see in Free Software. This includes, that he
involves the people not only as an anonymous workforce but as real
people. He has to listen to them, to consider their points and so on.
This at least is a big difference to what current ministers do - or
when have you been *really* asked by a minister for your opinion last
time?
and in finding ways to do something about it if that quality
was poor.
This might be an issue for someone else.
For a large area, that would probably mean spending all his
time working on this.
Might be. However, he could share the load with others. That would
then be a ministerial collective I guess ;-) .
He would not directly have the power to order
a polluting organization by a water source to change their ways, but
if he had involved enough people in his testing then surely they would
have to listen to him, so in that sense he would have power.
I'd not call that power. He has influence, some kind of natural
authority because of his knowledge and so on. I'm defining power being
the possibility to enforce something against resistance. (Benni
defines that different BTW.) This is not what he has.
It is
power as a representative, since not all people involved in testing
water quality with him would have the same power.
Their opinion is at least to a considerable part reflected in the
Matt's decisions. Well, you may all this a representative - but the
word doesn't mean that type of representation usually, does it?
But if
he told people to pour chemicals in the drinking water, no-one would
listen to him, and one of the other people involved would take over -
his power could be lost at any time.
Exactly at the point where his decisions reflect the opinions of
people not enough any longer.
I think that example is very similar to a free software project. What
examples of necessary government functions aren't?
Ahm... That question again... Are you trying to say there is no
general difference? Then I agree ;-) .
Also, this is a very abstract argument (getting close to the classic
'replacement of administration over people by administration of things')
- maybe its not a fruitful one to be spending time on, since it's about
something so remote?
At least I am finding it very fruitful :-) . This is an important
point I wanted to discuss since long.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/