Wjhonson is pointing out a valid problem with P2PU, and almost all other similar initiatives I know. For a long time Wikieducator had the same closed decision making set up, and by the time it did implement a form of democratic governance, the "culture" of the space was quite particular, making change proposals even more difficult to pitch and test.
But what Joe suggests, is offering/suggesting P2PU use Wikiversity as their wiki platform. P2PU would be subject to Wikiversity governance structures (which also has its problems). There is at least 2 organisations that I know of using Wikiversity, and they also do not have an open governance structure. The University of Canberra<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/University_of_Canberra> (UC), and its National Institute of Sport Studies<http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/UCNISS> (UCNISS). The UC space is informal - a testing ground used by a small number of staff who hope to inspire change at UC, along the lines of the openness in the wiki development process and governance structure to some extent. The UCNISS space is a more formal use, where staff are encouraged by their director to use Wikiversity for teaching and research developments. I don't see how P2PU's use of Wikiversity would be any different. All are ultimately governed by Wikiversity's governance structure, while their own communities choose their own structures and processes, just as individuals on Wikiversity do, as do individuals in those organisations. On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Joe Corneli <[email protected]>wrote: > > Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain > > consensus which can actually make changes, etc. > > I still don't see what you want to change other than the way the > "political" structures of P2PU work - the way decisions are made, but > not the decisions themselves, so to speak. In particular, it seems to > me you're saying you want a "clear box" in place of the current "black > box". But, #1, I'm not so sure it *is* a black box. To my mind it's > just a community of people, more or less transparent depending on how > well you get to know them. And, #2, as I indicated earlier, I don't > think swapping day-to-day community-driven consensus for some other > form of decisions is actually a very good idea (even *when* things > like board elections are introduced as part of incorporation and > nonprofit status). Nor do I think it's likely to happen. In > particular, my guess is that the board will play more of an "advisory" > role, much like the current council. > > To my mind there are other forms of transparency that seem more > useful. Clearly political and associated power structures have a very > concrete importance to you, and some others are likely feel the same > way. And yet, whatever their political views may be, the P2PU > community seems on average happy with the way things work there. I do > hope that you will not poison the water for possible Wikiversity-P2PU > teamups. I also think that given your interests in transparency, a > most appropriate venue for further discussion of P2PU politics would > be the P2PU community list, but I can nearly guarantee you that unless > you word your critiques very carefully and constructively, no one > there will be much moved by them. I'm not going to continue to > discuss P2PU politics here. > > Best wishes, > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > Wikiversity-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l > -- -- Leigh Blackall +61(0)404561009 skype - leigh_blackall [email protected] http://leighblackall.blogspot.com http://lifesouth.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
