If you look at this through a Community-of-Practice lense you would probably try to build a core group that drives, coordinates and enforces. Nancy will know better whether these groups just 'happen' or are actively created, but I would guess that in a lot of cases people self-select into the core group. If it stays open for others, then the regular members consent to giving that core power by not participating in it.
Stephan On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Robert Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 08:37:01AM -0700, Howard Rheingold wrote: > > I won't be herding, but I'll be contributing, and, I hope, so will > > Andrea. > > Understood. But I made mention of veto power in no small part because > we truly do lack even the kind and amount of authoritarianism which > allows a wikipedia or a debian to thrive. It's a conundrum I can't seem > to get clear of: this open commons thing still needs someone to enforce > boundaries. If it didn't affect us so directly in our work it would be > an interesting theoretical discussion. > > rl > > > > -- cell: +1 202 294 4055 Skype & gtalk: stephandohrn http://www.linkedin.com/in/sdohrn --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CooperationCommons" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CooperationCommons?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
