I see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
As the real problem. I don’t tend to believe in natural hierarchies, but I do believe in this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
That in some sense that early adopters are better than other people and that things start out cool and deteriorate and one way to counter that when the party gets too big you start a new party and get the early adopters to come along. I would point out this essay
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
And say that I think her analysis is right factually but I take the opposite position that the ‘structureless’ organization she describes is capable of activism that more sustainable groups just can’t do and say form that kind of organization when you can and know it isn’t going to last.
Sustainability is non-profit speak for ‘profitability’ and if you value that an organization because Oxfam or the ACLU or the Mozilla Foundation and suffers from the corruption of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
I’d say ‘benign despotism’ is alright for an organization where you’ve got the right to exit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
But due process, democracy and all that are necessary for when you don’t have exit.
Jurgen Habermas wrote a ponderous 2 volume book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Ac...
which pursues the idea of a perfect deliberative process which one some hand seems closer because of widespread electronic communications yet our experience with things like Twitter makes it seem terribly naive between (1) people not acting in good faith and (2) others believing that people are not acting in good faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
As the real problem. I don’t tend to believe in natural hierarchies, but I do believe in this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
That in some sense that early adopters are better than other people and that things start out cool and deteriorate and one way to counter that when the party gets too big you start a new party and get the early adopters to come along. I would point out this essay
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
And say that I think her analysis is right factually but I take the opposite position that the ‘structureless’ organization she describes is capable of activism that more sustainable groups just can’t do and say form that kind of organization when you can and know it isn’t going to last.
Sustainability is non-profit speak for ‘profitability’ and if you value that an organization because Oxfam or the ACLU or the Mozilla Foundation and suffers from the corruption of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
I’d say ‘benign despotism’ is alright for an organization where you’ve got the right to exit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
But due process, democracy and all that are necessary for when you don’t have exit.
Jurgen Habermas wrote a ponderous 2 volume book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Ac...
which pursues the idea of a perfect deliberative process which one some hand seems closer because of widespread electronic communications yet our experience with things like Twitter makes it seem terribly naive between (1) people not acting in good faith and (2) others believing that people are not acting in good faith.