Joe Corneli said:
*I like P2PU a lot, but one very technical shortcoming in my view is
their wiki (
). There has been considerable talk
about how to replace it, but nothing has happened yet
*
*
*
*I wonder (and this is just as a user of both Wikiversity and P2PU)
whether it would be possible to create a "P2PU" namespace within
Wikiversity, and use that as the P2PU wiki? That would be one way to
synergize the two projects, and it *might* be preferable to do that
than for P2PU to start their own Mediawiki-based wiki elsewhere. What
do you think?*
I think this is a great idea. What can we do to progress the suggestion? I
am forwarding it to Stian.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
--
--
Leigh Blackall
+61(0)404561009
skype - leigh_blackall
leighblackall(a)gmail.com