> I certainly was not aware of, nor made aware of, any place or system within
> P2PU where a person could actually cite policy to enact changes.
It's true that they are not particularly driven by policy, and don't
have a particularly clear roadmap (which I think is more a historical
fluke than anything), and so don't have a policy for changing the
roadmap. My personal hope is to help get the roadmap in order, but I
hope that change in that institution is always going to be about what
people *do* and not about policy.
> If the meaning and nature of "rough consensus" and the specific issue, is
> determined by the existing power structure, and that power structure is not
> available to be modified, than what you have really is a oligarchic
> benevolence government.
I don't reify power structures in the way you appear to do. I prefer
to think about things like "what wiki does the organisation use, and
what features does that wiki have?" If I don't like something, I
either look for a solution or else put up with the problem until I'm
totally sick of it. I have enough problems of that nature that I
don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is,
suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete
issues outside of political theory?
> This isn't ancient Greece, and any system of "We'll listen to
> you as long as we like to but we're not under any requirement to do anything
> the public wants" isn't an open governance system.
I can't see any more clear illustration of the difference between
governance and government. At P2PU, there is no transcendent or royal
"we" that has the power to do, or to not do, what "the public" wants.
It's true that there is a division between those who have the power to
write checks and those who don't have that power, but that doesn't
mean that the non-check-writers lack other forms of power.