There is no effective method I can persue to effect
this change, outside of
getting agreement from the upper power structure.
/me wonders if you really consider waiting a couple years for an
election, and voting for someone else to really be an effective method
of making change?
And if all else fails, this is free-content. You have the right to
fork, which is the typical method of effecting change in the open
source world when all else has failed. (yes i know, open source/free
software != free culture, but its close enough). Its even better than
voting, since anyone can do it (you don't need a plurality or majority
depending on voting system), and you can do it any time. No waiting
for elections :)
Our Wiki environment, here and elsewhere within the
sister projects does
*not* work in this manner.
Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain
consensus which can actually make changes, etc.
Back in the early days, Wikipedia was owned by a porn company. By
comparison (without being overly familiar with it), p2pu seems more
open.
-bawolff
2011/1/24 Wjhonson <wjhonson(a)aol.com>om>:
> Not made up Joe, actual.
> I have an issue with something in the system. I would like to change.
> That's a real issue, not made up.
There is no effective method I can persue to effect
this change, outside of
getting agreement from the upper power structure.
> There is no effective method
by which I can gain admission to the upper
> power structure.
> That's a real issue Joe, not theory.
>
Our Wiki environment, here and elsewhere within the
sister projects does
*not* work in this manner.
Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain
consensus which can actually make changes, etc.
> That is not a benevolent
oligarchy, that is a representative democracy, or
> as near as we can get to that.
> Without a method by which persons can gain admission to the corridors of
> power, you do not have anything close to a democracy.
> That's why I oppose any involvement with P2PU.
>
> These are issues Joe which have actually had a direct effect in an actual
> situation. Not theory.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Corneli <holtzermann17(a)gmail.com>
> To: Mailing list for Wikiversity <wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 1:36 pm
> Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] what is wikiversity for? (Re: US gov't awards
> $2B in edu....
>
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiversity-l mailing list
> Wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
>
>