I am very interested in this idea. Before we even think about what we might do I think it's an interesting technical question to consider the tool we would need to make it work.
Google Groups is certainly not it; it's barely functional; your mods are swimmng through eighty spams a day, some of them quite offensive; technical glitches keep appearing. One approach is simply to pull together a like-minded group and run a world-readable, group writable wiki. That's probably the right way to start, anyway. So we would need to agree on who was in and who out. However, I think what makes this group interesting is that we probably don't have two people who agree on every major issue (among the regular posters). This is good; we've attracted some interesting people who think for themselves and yet treat each other with respect and even grudging admiration. On the other hand, we are a long way from a group who can agree on what to do. The trouble with committees is that they tend not to say anything. Scientists are better than others, as you can see at http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf and even so what they have come up with is a long way from prescriptive. I think Linus Torvalds shows us the way. Somebody has to come up with a core product that is of sufficient interest that others are willing to contribute to it. The initial product forms the filter, such that those who think it is a good idea join in and others ignore it. The initial author (in the open source world the BFDL or "benevolent dictator for life") hands out modification privileges on a basis of trust. Eventually as the project becomes very large the privilege of handing out privileges is handed out. The BDFL can be a group rather than an individual to begin with, but they require a strong commonality of purpose and mutual trust. For instance, much as I enjoy debating with Heiko, it's clear we disagree about the urgency and seriousness of the global situation. I would happily collaborate with him in a demonstration project of how people can disagree respectfully and openmindedly, but I would not want him a coequal on a project about what we should do, unless and until our opinions on what the problem is converge. Rather than acheiving this with a difficult process of exclusion, consider a process of inclusion, where some individual or small group sets the guiding vision. I am not volunteering for BDFL by the way. That isn't how it is done. I'm just suggesting that there are a few historical precedents that shows how this could work. The way to become BDFL is twofold: benevolence and leadership. Real open source projects begin with hundreds of hours of seed labor from their founder. mt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
