Peter Tribble wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> > wrote: >> I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that any model in which individual >> collectives award the vote is a bad model. > > Which is why I want one single central authority rather than hundreds > throughout the community. And I don't see that that authority does > any more work than each of the individual collectives - in fact the > economies of scale suggest this would be a net win. > > I'm almost tempted to write the collectives out of the process entirely. > The important thing is that someone has contributed, not that their > collective/leaders has run the machinery. > > Basically, we give the vote to someone who > - has contributed > - wants to vote > > I think filling out the application form (of their own volition, or at > the suggestion of someone else) covers the second part. > > If the collective machinery has been operated then that's one way > to verify that contribution has occurred; I see that as a route that > can be heavyweight and technically unnecessary. A much lighter- > -weight mechanism would be for the applicant to say "I've done X", > or for a sponsor or advocate (any existing Member) to say "yup, > they've contributed". > > In some ways, trusting existing Members to vouch for new members > is very attractive. It also spreads the work naturally amongst those > who are already known to have shown an interest in governance. >
+1 Cheers, Jim
