Zach Miller (zarfmouse) wrote,
Zach Miller

How to do it better?

Ok let's try to get something creative and useful out of all that silliness in my last (friends-only) post. szasz feels that some organizations " by figuring out, on its own, what it thinks it can get from contributors, and then TAKING IT FROM THEM. Rather than be true communities where people can get together and make a contribution, they've gotten nasty old lives of their own, like some kind of Terry Gilliam-inspired contraption."

How would you (not just szasz, but any of you) structure a community collective in a way that would prevent loud voices from dominating and the organization taking on a life of it's own that might get out of sync with the needs of the community? Key goals are that community members should have an easy time getting involved, should not feel overwhelmed by process and contention, and supporters who are not actively involved in the process should be able to trust that their support is going to a broad community serving organization and not just funding pet projects.

I happen to think that the IMC succeeds at a lot of this and that where it fails the failures are minor and represent interpersonal personality conflict issues rather than structural issues. If you are familiar with the IMC, do you feel that it has fundamental structural issues and what would you think might work better? Whether you are familiar or not, do you think it is possible for a community organization to solve/address the issue of personality conflicts in structural ways?

Brainstorm. Everyone promise not to debate anything raised here. I just wanna see exploration of different ideas. Wild proposals. Crazy utopian dreams. Pragmatic solutions. Cynical admission of impossibility. Whatever.
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded