On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that any model in which individual > collectives award the vote is a bad model.
Which is why I want one single central authority rather than hundreds throughout the community. And I don't see that that authority does any more work than each of the individual collectives - in fact the economies of scale suggest this would be a net win. I'm almost tempted to write the collectives out of the process entirely. The important thing is that someone has contributed, not that their collective/leaders has run the machinery. Basically, we give the vote to someone who - has contributed - wants to vote I think filling out the application form (of their own volition, or at the suggestion of someone else) covers the second part. If the collective machinery has been operated then that's one way to verify that contribution has occurred; I see that as a route that can be heavyweight and technically unnecessary. A much lighter- -weight mechanism would be for the applicant to say "I've done X", or for a sponsor or advocate (any existing Member) to say "yup, they've contributed". In some ways, trusting existing Members to vouch for new members is very attractive. It also spreads the work naturally amongst those who are already known to have shown an interest in governance. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
