Re: [ox-en] Re: Business opportuities based on Free Software
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 18:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Interesting: I didn't realize to what extend the wikipedia process had such a personalistic process at its core. In peer governance, the issue of leadership is 1) voluntary; 2) based on either historical or meritocratic authority; 3) needs to combine participation and efficiency.
It all starts from a group of people putting their stake in the ground and saying: "this is the common project I want to undertake, will you participate". This is what Jimbo Wales did, and why he is the historical leader of the project.
Ultrademocratic processes are not always to best way to achieve this. It will always be about finding the right balance between hierarchy and participation. In the case of Wikipedia, it works now because of the peculiar qualities of leadership of Jimmy Wales, but such a personalistic system is indeed dangerous. But any misbehaviour would also be noticed and reacted against by the community. So far, it seems to be broadly accepted.
So what I'm saying is. It is not ideal, but at the same time, it's the workable and pragmatic solution that this community has accepted and chosen.
In my own experience: you need a core of people to drive any project forward; if you just wait for a group of people to spontaneously bring a project forward, it is, in the vast majority of cases not workable.
Question: would Oekonux work without Stefan Merten?
Michel
Christoph Reuss <crox iac-research.ch> wrote: Franz Nahrada wrote today:
list-en oekonux.org writes:
And one whose boss doesn't see himself as a new sort of King Louis XIV,
with the management approach "that [the company] just means me,
since I'm the final decisionmaking authority." ("L'état c'est moi!")
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000652.html
Chris, in this very mail he refers to Bomis, not to wikipedia,
My point was that he has this Louis-Quatorze attitude. This makes it
likely that he applies this attitude also in other domains. And indeed,
your URLs confirm this:
and if you follow wikipedia closely you will see that the final
decdisionmaking authority of Jimbo Wales is an issue of discussion:
you might want to look here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee
Actually, this confirms that Jimbo Wales behaves like a King -- he even
compares himself with the Queen of England !!:
| Jimbo wrote:
| "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll
| consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the
| right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing
| if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I
| plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament
| against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety
| valve for our values."[1]
In other words: If the puppets don't do what their master wants, they'll
be replaced and overruled. Looks like the Iraqi puppet government.
| The original Arbitration Committee was appointed by Jimbo Wales,
(why not by election?)
| all Arbitrators serve at Jimbo's pleasure, and are not automatically
| removed at the expiration of those terms, but only by the appointment
| of a replacement or otherwise by Jimbo's will.
Well maybe King was an understatement -- God may be more appropriate.
And following the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elections#Arbitration_Committee
--> Election process:
| Note that "elections" to the Arbitration Commitee only advise Jimbo on
| who to appoint; it is not binding on him, and he is free to appoint others
| and not to appoint those "elected".
So this is a mockery of democracy -- King Jimbo I. can decide at will, without
accountability, which persons (elected or not) get into the Arbitration
Commitee which is __supposed to REPLACE__ his absolutistic rule.
L'état, c'est moi!
Well, the original Louis XIV at least was honest enough to tell it like it is,
and didn't install such pseudo-democratic smoke-screens to fool the people
over who's in charge. But isn't OpenSource about honesty and transparency?
What an impressive illustration of what I wrote earlier today:
The ideological stance of people affects their
acts and true motives. As with George Soros, no amount of hypocrisy can
ultimately conceal the true colors of capitalist greed, at least for those
who pay attention.
Chris
_____________________________________________________________________________
"As a market participant, I don't need to be concerned with the consequences
of my actions." --"Philanthropist" George Soros on his business ethics
"The Soros strategy for extending Pax Americana differs from the Bush
model, particularly in its subtlety. But it is just as ambitious and just
as deadly. Left-liberals, admiring his support for some of their favourite
issues such
as gay rights and the legalisation of soft drugs, let him off lightly."
--Neil Clark in the New Statesman 02-Jun-2003 -- "Profile of George Soros"
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de