PledgeBank is now closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse, but you can no longer create or sign pledges. Find out more…



Tom --

Gar. I was going to give some eloquent defence of the process so far, but instead, let me just completely capitulate.

The process up until now has been based on the requests of people at the very start of this comment pile, who wanted to concretely know in more detail what they were signing up for. Because I thought "well, what do *you* think it should be?" wasn't the answer they were looking for, I've been trying to bootstrap enough to answer that question.

It's probably not as transparent a process as it should be, because there's been no time (or more honestly I haven't made time to make it transparent at this point, and maybe I should have done).

And I'm not sure we've emphasised enough that this is all interim stuff, and designed to be flexible enough to change (and that there was no expectation that you'd run ORG itself like this). Basically, the needs were a) to pick a balance of people so that it wouldn't all self-combust, b) get a manifesto out, c) choose a name so that calling it $RIGHTS_ORG to people wouldn't get so embarasssing, and d) get a constitution so that ORG would have some legal status and accountability to the membership.

For ORG itself, the note I have scribbled on an envelope from the original OpenTech talk was "transparency with autonomy". I don't think an organisation like this should be *managed* by the membership, but I do think that the membership have the right to see what's going on at a fairly high level of detail, and thereafter vote with their fivers.

Through ignorance, I haven't been sure of a way of doing all this early stuff while double-checking every act with 1000 people. And I don't like the idea of *impressions* of consultation, when they're not really there. But of course, that means that you end up giving the wrong impression.

So, in conclusion: Gar. I'm running away for the weekend, but the Sinister Evil Kabal will spend more time thinking about this, and move being more transparent in front of all th e other priorities. I'm not sure how much active direct consultation on every decision is feasible, frankly, given that everyone wants to act quickly, and everyone is doing this in the time-slices available between looking for money to eat. But it would definitely do to start cruelly taking advantage of the huge distributed store of knowledge we have to my left, instead of just blundering around in the secret underground hollowed-out mountain.
Danny O'Brien 在 16 天前。