[MG] Disempowering admins

[Alex Rollin]

I wrote a blog post about this, also:

http://alexrollin.com/content/accumulation-and-control-power-distance-end-age-profit

My post is more of a "society piece", if you will, and rather acerbic
in it's own way, but perhaps you will see why I say it is also "about
this".

--
Alex
werk: http://commoning.net
me: http://alexrollin.com
mob: +31 (0) 6 31 56 96 88
?It?s no longer possible for a country to collapse in isolation. Now
we all collapse. ?The only path to stability is to equalize the
consumption rates of the first and developing world. Our dream is no
longer possible in the new world.? - Jared Diamond




On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Ed Pastore <epastore at metagovernment.org> wrote:
> I recently posted a question to that effect as a Slashdot submission. It got
> modded down to purple (second to lowest priority) meaning it had little
> change of making it onto the main site.
>
> Then I submitted it again (anonymously this time), and took out references
> to collaborative governance, making it just an IT question about the power
> of admins (though it does link to the DAN page I recently created). That
> question is modded up to red (highest priority). There is a pretty good
> chance it will show up on Slashdot sometime today or tomorrow. Maybe.
>
> You can see that submission here:
> http://slashdot.org/submission/1438118/Disempowering-the-singular-sysadmin
> and clicking the + sign next to the title will help mod it higher.
>
> As to whether or not it shows up on the main page is anyone's guess. But
> keep an eye on slashdot.org to see if it does. This particular question is
> one where Slashdot can be genuinely helpful.
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Pietro Speroni di Fenizio wrote:
>
>> Hello everybody,
>> I am back.
>> I saw a lot of email exchanges.
>>
>> I am also ok with Michael Allen.
>>
>> One thing that came to me was that I wished that no one, not Michael,
>> not me, not Ed, just no single person had the power to destroy the
>> whole project.
>>
>> It would be interesting to set up a system where an action (let's say,
>> an email get sent, which then could trigger a number of other actions)
>> only when everybody inside a group, (or at least n people out of a
>> group, or at least ... but considering that this person counts
>> more...) agrees on it.
>>
>> Think about this simple tool. You set up an online system, you set up
>> what the action would be, and you program the rules. In the most basic
>> form when one calls for the action to be taken, then the system would
>> automatically contact the other users. If they agree too (clicking on
>> a specific unique link), then the system sends the email. And if
>> necessary also adds the signature of the people that have agreed. I
>> have seen many such systems in one form or another around the
>> internet. But always only as a part of a bigger system. For example to
>> destroy a question in stackoverflow you need so many votes by users
>> who each has at least a karma of...
>>
>> But no system seem to be general enough that anyone can just set it up.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pietro
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
>> http://www.metagovernment.org/
>> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
>> Manage subscription:
>> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> http://www.metagovernment.org/
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription:
> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>



Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org