Re: [ox-en] Democracy and peer production

Hi Stefan and the list,

>> I find these
>> "automatisms" quite dangerous.
> 
> Well, democracy is also a kind of automatism - right?

No, I would not say that democracy automatically leads
to the consideration of the needs of people. This depends on other
factors as well. And people need to fill democracy with life.
If "Selbstentfaltung" claims to have such an automatism, this
is either wrong, or, if the automatism is "by definition",
it is merely a goal, and the interesting discussion would be
about the means to reach it.

> Since I know you are a heavy supporter of democracy: May be you can
> summarize what you think are important goals for which democracy is a
> means.

Humanism, freedom, reconciliation of individuum and society,
consideration of needs of people

>> To put it frankly: this opens the door for little dictators,
>> who often have to be disempowered by strength-draining forks.
>> There are a number of examples of this in the free software
>> movement.
> 
> But isn't this exactly how democracy works? The change of a government
> certainly comes not without cost so I don't see why forking is so much
> worse.

Consider e.g. the Debian GNU/Linux project. The election of a new leader
has happened several times, and comes definitely with less costs
than a fork. (Although I would say that Debian exaggerates the use
of democratic votes, but this does not mean that they are not needed.)

> But you actually mentioned one important institution to transfer power
> from one maintainer to another: forking. Whether a fork is really
> necessary is decided in practice then (and it rarely is given the low
> number of forks).
> 
> Indeed one of the nice features of democracy is that you can get rid
> of your government without a bloodshed. This is a feature we certainly
> want to keep in a post-democratic society.

Good that you have found some point where we agree. :-)

> Well, my best description on how decision making in peer production
> can be described is by finding a consensus (== nobody has to object).
> Listening to the needs of people is obviously a precondition for that.
> That I'd call a participative process.

I always prefer consensus to a democratic vote. But there are
controversies where it is hard to find a consensus (even within one
individual...) In such situations, the force to find a consensus can
be counter-productive, since very subtle mechanisms (not transparent
to the individuals) can determine the consensus that is actually found.
So I would sum up: Try to find a consensus, and if this is not
possible, use a democratic vote.

> But I'd call an opinion poll like you described not democracy. May be
> I'd define as democracy a situation where you have one human, one
> vote - and vote means that you can choose among several options.

Yes, a mere opinion poll can be ignored by a maintainer, a democratic
vote cannot.

Best,
Till

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]