discuss: Thread: Should LDP apply for non-profit status (was Re: VolunteerMatch ...)

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:46:07PM -0500, Bradley Hook wrote:
> Rick Moen wrote:
> I agree that committees can create burdensome bureaucracy, and prevent
> things from getting done. I have seen this sort of bureaucracy cause
> harm to more than one non-profit computerist organization, but I have
> also seen it work. But, as I see it, with a democracy you can at least
> try to change the organization for the better. With a do-ocracy
> the few early "do-ers" generally end up with authoritarian power, and
> your only choice to create change is to fork the project. In my opinion,
> this happens a little too often in the open source communities and slows
> progress rather than promoting it.

There's a 3rd way and that's something I put into the manifesto when I
revised it.  No one complained about it so it was never discussed (but
other points in the manifesto were widely discussed and debated).  What
I added was: "When we disagree on things, we try to reason with each
other until we reach an informed consensus."

It's not exactly clear what this means but it seems to work.  It's not
exactly democracy, since if the majority want something but are
misinformed about it, it doesn't fly.  It's not just consensus but
*informed* consensus.

Now I think it's possible to keep this informal form of governance and
also incorporate.  I think there is no requirement that incorporated
organizations be democratic.  Many churches aren't democratic.
But our manifesto needs some revision before incorporating (and even
if we don't incorporate) regarding publishing LDP documents, etc.  The
articles of incorporation for LDP would specify the manifesto as our
governing document and we would continue to operate just like we do
now.  Except that we would need a leader and secretary to sign the
articles of incorporation and a treasurer to handle our money (with
the decisions on how to invest it left to the mailing list). 

So right now the number one priority is to recruit volunteers, and
since we can't use VolunteerMatch, well have to try other way, like our
website and simplification of instructions for authoring, etc.

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a do-ocracy can't work or is
> inferior. It's just that in my experience, a democracy has more
> continuity and organization, and therefor I prefer the democratic
> model.

My experience has been the opposite.  I think "informed consensus" may
work better than "democracy".  Regarding continuity, in a "democratic"
but mismanaged church, they jointly owned (with others) two parcels of
real estate but due to lack of continuity, forgot they owned them.
Both parcels were sold by others and the church not only got nothing
but failed to realize that they had lost anything since they didn't
know they owned them.  One parcel sold for millions.  I found this out
from info in the archives, etc.

[snip]
> In my view, you are implicitly criticizing what you believe to be my
> definitions. However, I will attempt to be more explicit, and use
> more legalese, if I ever decide to express my thoughts on this
> mailing list in the future.

Please don't hesitate to post to this list.  Your comments are
appreciated.

			David Lawyer