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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]