Thank you for the cites. I also appreciate that you note the distinction between decentralized (local) leadership and leaderless. I personally favor ad-hoc & o

Thank you for the cites. I also appreciate that you note the distinction between decentralized (local) leadership and leaderless. I personally favor ad-hoc & on-demand, transient, hiearchical structures, optionally with robust leadership, as the norm for future organizations. Information systems help in making such orders practically viable. I should add that I don't share your disdain for "wise people". It is true that the trust element, to say nothing of actual wisdom provided, are potential bug sources. But some problems do require the top-down approach, and the period preceding an emergent order (consensus) via bottom-up ("do it yourself") approach is non-optimal for certain contingencies. In general, I think it pays to be flexible and practical when it comes to organizational structure. You mentioned the "ethos" of CNT, which is imho the fundamental driver of organizational health. No social architecture can save a society from its own nature or character defects.