I don't have an opinion here and I mostly agree in preferring non-formal
(as in legal) organizations.

The burden is less and the dynamics are more neutral.

I do agree with Antero that the current status quo does not work tho.
And I disagree that the current model is flat. The current model is very
much a meritocracy (as in privileged - people that have the benefit of
time and knowledge) in all the bad ways. And yeah personally I am not a
programmer that likes meritocracy.

That said I do not have the energy to go into this as I am occupied with
other collectives atm and my own projects. So feel free to disregard 🙂

MSavoritias

Lassi Kortela kirjoitti 3.10.2024 klo 15.48:
>> You will have a hierarchy whether you like it or not. The question
>> here seems to be whether you will design one formally and explicitly
>> or keep the informal ad-hoc hierarchy that is in place at the moment.
>
> I believe Scheme's organizational problems are solved by hub-and-spoke
> models where the spokes are opinionated and the hub is neutral.
>
> SRFI is like this. Authors are opinionated; the Editor is neutral.
>
> Scheme.org has a neutral kernel and the subdomains are (very mildly)
> opinionated. More broadly, other Scheme websites are opinionated and
> scheme.org should be like a sum or an average of those opinions.
>
> RnRS should have Scheme implementers as spokes and a neutral mediator
> as the hub. R6RS and R7RS divided the community because the hub was
> opinionated. R7RS-large attempts to be more neutral.
>
> Most people find it hard to be neutral in a position where money and
> influence are up for grabs. While we could take pains to create a
> neutral Foundation, I expect it will disproportionately attract
> self-serving people. Keeping RnRS neutral, where everyone operates at
> a financial loss, has already proven to be an almost inhuman feat.
>
> Antero points out that Scheme projects tend to have a low truck
> number, but so does any position requiring impartiality. Few have what
> it takes. It's best not to multiply such positions without a good
> reason to do so.
>
> From a hierarchy standpoint, a hub-and-spokes model has the advantage
> that it is very flat. Most programmers love this. An issue is that the
> burden of communication falls on the hub. This person has to be a good
> communicator with strong empathy. Arthur has done a great job with SRFI.