Cecil Pinto wrote:
Should the selection of GoaNet Moderators and Administrators be by popular opinion or by Founders and current rulers?
My personal view is that Net-based ventures are best run as benevolent dictatorships. With people getting peer-acceptance on the basis of the work they put in.
Too much of politics ruins the possiblities.
For instance, if Cybermatrimonials seems to playing a socially-useful role, then I see no reason for an election to be held to decide how to run it "democratically".
Along the way I would surely get tired of it, and would love to hand it over to someone else -- but provided that someone shares the vision it was set up with, and is going to run it as well, if not better.
Finding volunteers is never an easy task. Fighting elections and squabbling over posts is a game anyone can indulge in.
This is the way many volunteer-driven Free Software projects are run too. Often, they get handed over from one team or person to another. Linus Torvalds is the benevolent dictator when it comes to maintaining the kernel. Richard Stallman remains the founder and chairman of the Free Software Foundation.
There's no democracy in an electoral sense here. If arrogance creeps in, it would have to be beaten back with competition. Volunteers are always welcome; after all, we're not fighting over an empire here but rather working to build the difficult-to-create social capital. FN
