MSavoritias writes:
> >> 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 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.

The point I was trying to get across is that without an explicitly
designed, formal organisation, this is what you will get instead.

It will only take one bad actor to bring "all the bad ways" to the
fore. The open source landscape is littered with the carcasses of
groups that had this happen to them. With a formally structured
organisation the bad actor will at least need to make a conscious
effort to destroy it and probably hire a lawyer.

However I am in the peanut gallery. I have no skin in the game and
this is not my decision to make.

Matthew