> That is why OSM is, and will remain, a do-ocracy. My crash course to the issues with different government systems:
a) anarchy. Problem: not well fit to a collaborative project b) dictatorship/monarchy. Someone with enough power decides how it works. AFAIK SteveC has empowered OSMF this way. Problem: the word sounds bad, at least unless you are from private sector where "boss is god" is accepted and normal. c) democracy. Problem: the minority just has to accept power of majority. So they are always unhappy. If they don't, then they are ridiculous, and can be physically executed in extreme cases. Even in most democratic countries. d) do-ocracy. Key problem: it is unstable and uneffective. If in time A someone does something, then in moment B the others will wake up and do something against it, or if you have different groups not agreeing doing same thing, then you end up having a lot of waste of resources. As any doing is right then you cannot really blame either of them. I could start a poll to decide which one to choose, but then I would already pre-assume democracy and would give unfair preference to it. Coming from private sector, I know that option B is the most effective to get things really done, but I'm not sure if it is optimal for OSM. But I can live with do-ocracy as well, even if it really ineffective and can be frustrating. -- JaakL _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
