Re: Social Committee proposal
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:51:28PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Yes, but that would mean that it could have hundreds of members.
> > That's just not manageable.
> Then nor are ~1000 developers, nor the 6000+ who run a phone company
> with me, nor the 3.5million who own shops with me, nor any other large
> multi-member business, but that's clearly not true. You need to
> manage them in a different way. This needs management in the large.
Yet, all of those other groups that you mentioned have some form of
semi-social organization: the phone company people have a management and
(probably) a human resources department; the shop owners have guilds;
and all of them combined have a common representation in the government
(legislature) that defines laws and other acts. None of these things
that govern their interaction are purely technical, many are social.
> > Should we really let anyone join, and then have to convince the leader
> > or do a general resolution vote every time we want to replace someone
> > who's doing something wrong?
> Yes, you should let anyone join and then convince everyone every time
> you want to replace someone.
> It may not be possible and it may be desirable to set things up so you
> aren't *required* to do that, but I believe you *should* do it.
I can't say I see how that would be a good idea.
2. That which causes joy or happiness.