4 ms·

Governance: basically anarchic, but with one person ultimately calling the shots. That's the classic problem with pseudo-anarchies. They're really dictatorship

by Animats 5mo ago

Governance: basically anarchic, but with one person ultimately calling the shots. That's the classic problem with pseudo-anarchies. They're really dictatorships. The larger scale form of this is the non-profit with the self-perpetuating board, where the board of directors appoints its successors. It's the standard form for big non-profits, such as hospitals or national organizations. Non-profit organizations with real elected officials, where the incumbents get kicked out now and then, are rare. They take too much attention by the members. Nobody knows how to run a meeting under Robert's Rules of Order any more. The whole point of such meetings is that the group is in charge and the outcome is a binding decision. Most organizational leaders don't want that.

kibwen 5mo ago
I think there's a pretty critical difference between a "dictatorship" and what this is, which is rule-by-the-least-apathetic; maybe let's call this "pathocracy" (from pathos). The minimum number of pathocrats needed to sustain such an organization is one, and the pathocracy either successfully grows until it warrants a more formal organizational structure or it dies when the sole remaining pathocrat bows out. For plenty of community events--maybe even nearly all of them--this is sufficient; the bi-monthly knitting circle at your local library probably does not greatly benefit from imposing a bureaucracy upon itself. And I say this as someone who's sitting within thirty feet of a copy of Robert's Rules of Order.
- Animats 5mo ago
  > rule-by-the-least-apathetic That is a great phrase. Many small organizations don't need much governance. Those are usually the ones with no real assets. At the community space level, you have assets and constraints. At that point you need some degree of governance. This article would have been more interesting if it wasn't just one guy and his space, but an article by someone who had visited a few community spaces to see how they were organized. I've watched Bay Area maker spaces come and go. TechShop is gone. TheShop is gone. The gym model didn't work. HumanMade has some government funding for its job training function, and is quite expensive. Noisebridge, the most anarchic space, is still running. They've had to shut down for months for cleanup, or move, twice. Some spaces were taken over by arts and crafts people, and now are more into paper-folding and glue guns than CNC milling. Some spaces ended up in the teen college resume building niche.
iugtmkbdfil834 5mo ago
It may have something to do with the audience though. I would say it is closer to Pratchett's idea of monarchy in Ramptops than anarchy. It is not that people there were not interested. They may even cheer the king on principle. After all, kings are supposed to be kings. It is rather that when kings did something stupid enough, pitchforks were there to remind them. In this case, the audience can simply stop being part of the group.

by Animats 5mo ago

kibwen 5mo ago

I think there's a pretty critical difference between a "dictatorship" and what this is, which is rule-by-the-least-apathetic; maybe let's call this "pathocracy" (from pathos). The minimum number of pathocrats needed to sustain such an organization is one, and the pathocracy either successfully grows until it warrants a more formal organizational structure or it dies when the sole remaining pathocrat bows out. For plenty of community events--maybe even nearly all of them--this is sufficient; the bi-monthly knitting circle at your local library probably does not greatly benefit from imposing a bureaucracy upon itself. And I say this as someone who's sitting within thirty feet of a copy of Robert's Rules of Order.

Animats 5mo ago
> rule-by-the-least-apathetic That is a great phrase. Many small organizations don't need much governance. Those are usually the ones with no real assets. At the community space level, you have assets and constraints. At that point you need some degree of governance. This article would have been more interesting if it wasn't just one guy and his space, but an article by someone who had visited a few community spaces to see how they were organized. I've watched Bay Area maker spaces come and go. TechShop is gone. TheShop is gone. The gym model didn't work. HumanMade has some government funding for its job training function, and is quite expensive. Noisebridge, the most anarchic space, is still running. They've had to shut down for months for cleanup, or move, twice. Some spaces were taken over by arts and crafts people, and now are more into paper-folding and glue guns than CNC milling. Some spaces ended up in the teen college resume building niche.

iugtmkbdfil834 5mo ago

It may have something to do with the audience though. I would say it is closer to Pratchett's idea of monarchy in Ramptops than anarchy. It is not that people there were not interested. They may even cheer the king on principle. After all, kings are supposed to be kings. It is rather that when kings did something stupid enough, pitchforks were there to remind them. In this case, the audience can simply stop being part of the group.