[hackerspaces] a study of governance

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[hackerspaces] a study of governance

\0xDynamite
In the cornucopia of hackerspaces, two organizational structures seem
to stand the test of time:  '''do-ocracy''' and '''bureaucracy'''.

They represent two competing ideals.  Do-ocracy is a vertical axis of
individualism and bureaucracy is a horizontal axis of collective
action.  Economically, the comparison would be like capitalism vs.
socialism.

The success of do-ocracy is that you can just get things done -- if
you ''already have the will for it''.
The success of bureaucracy is that everyone is empowered -- when there
are resources to do them.

The weakness of do-ocracies is that since there is no pre-planning,
things you need ''aren't there''.  It gets there ''after'' a failure
occurs and ''if'' the individual acts on it.
The weakness of bureaucracy is that things happen s-l-o-w-l-y because
it's difficult to reach consensus and people burn out.

Most hackerspaces are not quite at these extremes as do-ocracies
implement weekly meetings, for example, for collective discussion, and
bureaucracies generally allow individual action when it doesn't
adversely affect anyone else or affect safety.

Most adhocracies seem to die out through lack of leadership,
participation, and entropy.

Here endeth the lesson.

\0x
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [hackerspaces] a study of governance

Edward L Platt-3
The book "Reinventing Organizations" has some excellent case studies of organizations that fit into a third, self-managed category: http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ -Ed

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Xer0Dynamite <[hidden email]> wrote:
In the cornucopia of hackerspaces, two organizational structures seem
to stand the test of time:  '''do-ocracy''' and '''bureaucracy'''.

They represent two competing ideals.  Do-ocracy is a vertical axis of
individualism and bureaucracy is a horizontal axis of collective
action.  Economically, the comparison would be like capitalism vs.
socialism.

The success of do-ocracy is that you can just get things done -- if
you ''already have the will for it''.
The success of bureaucracy is that everyone is empowered -- when there
are resources to do them.

The weakness of do-ocracies is that since there is no pre-planning,
things you need ''aren't there''.  It gets there ''after'' a failure
occurs and ''if'' the individual acts on it.
The weakness of bureaucracy is that things happen s-l-o-w-l-y because
it's difficult to reach consensus and people burn out.

Most hackerspaces are not quite at these extremes as do-ocracies
implement weekly meetings, for example, for collective discussion, and
bureaucracies generally allow individual action when it doesn't
adversely affect anyone else or affect safety.

Most adhocracies seem to die out through lack of leadership,
participation, and entropy.

Here endeth the lesson.

\0x
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



--
Edward L. Platt
PhD student, University of Michigan School of Information
KC1DYK

Tips for stopping email overload: https://hbr.org/2012/02/stop-email-overload-1

This digital electronic mail message was sent from my general-purpose desktop personal computing machine.  Please forgive any overly-verbose, long-winded, rambling prose.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [hackerspaces] a study of governance

\0xDynamite
Yes, that is my ultimate conclusion and I have made a game to combine
both:  the Pangaia World Game (aka Hacker World Domination).  See
<http://wiki.hackerspaces.org/HackerWorldDomination>.

It is a self-organizing system that combines both virtues into one
single system.

For the documents that started this thread, see
<http://wiki.hackerspaces.org/Governance>.

Mark

On 8/15/16, Edward L Platt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The book "Reinventing Organizations" has some excellent case studies of
> organizations that fit into a third, self-managed category:
> http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ -Ed
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Xer0Dynamite <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> In the cornucopia of hackerspaces, two organizational structures seem
>> to stand the test of time:  '''do-ocracy''' and '''bureaucracy'''.
>>
>> They represent two competing ideals.  Do-ocracy is a vertical axis of
>> individualism and bureaucracy is a horizontal axis of collective
>> action.  Economically, the comparison would be like capitalism vs.
>> socialism.
>>
>> The success of do-ocracy is that you can just get things done -- if
>> you ''already have the will for it''.
>> The success of bureaucracy is that everyone is empowered -- when there
>> are resources to do them.
>>
>> The weakness of do-ocracies is that since there is no pre-planning,
>> things you need ''aren't there''.  It gets there ''after'' a failure
>> occurs and ''if'' the individual acts on it.
>> The weakness of bureaucracy is that things happen s-l-o-w-l-y because
>> it's difficult to reach consensus and people burn out.
>>
>> Most hackerspaces are not quite at these extremes as do-ocracies
>> implement weekly meetings, for example, for collective discussion, and
>> bureaucracies generally allow individual action when it doesn't
>> adversely affect anyone else or affect safety.
>>
>> Most adhocracies seem to die out through lack of leadership,
>> participation, and entropy.
>>
>> Here endeth the lesson.
>>
>> \0x
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Edward L. Platt
> PhD student, University of Michigan School of Information
> https://elplatt.com
> @elplatt <http://twitter.com/elplatt>
> KC1DYK
>
> Tips for stopping email overload:
> https://hbr.org/2012/02/stop-email-overload-1
>
> This digital electronic mail message was sent from my general-purpose
> desktop personal computing machine.  Please forgive any overly-verbose,
> long-winded, rambling prose.
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [hackerspaces] a study of governance

Ben Beyeler
In reply to this post by Edward L Platt-3
I'd echo the regards for "Reinventing Organizations".   We've been part of trainings for Sociocracy (Dynamic Governance in the US). I appreciate how it provides structure for delegating work and empowering all.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Edward L Platt <[hidden email]> wrote:
The book "Reinventing Organizations" has some excellent case studies of organizations that fit into a third, self-managed category: http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ -Ed

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Xer0Dynamite <[hidden email]> wrote:
In the cornucopia of hackerspaces, two organizational structures seem
to stand the test of time:  '''do-ocracy''' and '''bureaucracy'''.

They represent two competing ideals.  Do-ocracy is a vertical axis of
individualism and bureaucracy is a horizontal axis of collective
action.  Economically, the comparison would be like capitalism vs.
socialism.

The success of do-ocracy is that you can just get things done -- if
you ''already have the will for it''.
The success of bureaucracy is that everyone is empowered -- when there
are resources to do them.

The weakness of do-ocracies is that since there is no pre-planning,
things you need ''aren't there''.  It gets there ''after'' a failure
occurs and ''if'' the individual acts on it.
The weakness of bureaucracy is that things happen s-l-o-w-l-y because
it's difficult to reach consensus and people burn out.

Most hackerspaces are not quite at these extremes as do-ocracies
implement weekly meetings, for example, for collective discussion, and
bureaucracies generally allow individual action when it doesn't
adversely affect anyone else or affect safety.

Most adhocracies seem to die out through lack of leadership,
participation, and entropy.

Here endeth the lesson.

\0x
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



--
Edward L. Platt
PhD student, University of Michigan School of Information
KC1DYK

Tips for stopping email overload: https://hbr.org/2012/02/stop-email-overload-1

This digital electronic mail message was sent from my general-purpose desktop personal computing machine.  Please forgive any overly-verbose, long-winded, rambling prose.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




--
-Ben
574-535-9199

transitiongoshen.org

Local initiatives for community resilience

Creative Investment in the Common Good


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [hackerspaces] a study of governance

Shirley Hicks
Thanks for the recommends. Have ordered the book.

Shirley Hicks
Red Mountain Makers
Birmingham, AL

On Aug 18, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ben Beyeler <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd echo the regards for "Reinventing Organizations".   We've been part of trainings for Sociocracy (Dynamic Governance in the US). I appreciate how it provides structure for delegating work and empowering all.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Edward L Platt <[hidden email]> wrote:
The book "Reinventing Organizations" has some excellent case studies of organizations that fit into a third, self-managed category: http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/ -Ed

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Xer0Dynamite <[hidden email]> wrote:
In the cornucopia of hackerspaces, two organizational structures seem
to stand the test of time:  '''do-ocracy''' and '''bureaucracy'''.

They represent two competing ideals.  Do-ocracy is a vertical axis of
individualism and bureaucracy is a horizontal axis of collective
action.  Economically, the comparison would be like capitalism vs.
socialism.

The success of do-ocracy is that you can just get things done -- if
you ''already have the will for it''.
The success of bureaucracy is that everyone is empowered -- when there
are resources to do them.

The weakness of do-ocracies is that since there is no pre-planning,
things you need ''aren't there''.  It gets there ''after'' a failure
occurs and ''if'' the individual acts on it.
The weakness of bureaucracy is that things happen s-l-o-w-l-y because
it's difficult to reach consensus and people burn out.

Most hackerspaces are not quite at these extremes as do-ocracies
implement weekly meetings, for example, for collective discussion, and
bureaucracies generally allow individual action when it doesn't
adversely affect anyone else or affect safety.

Most adhocracies seem to die out through lack of leadership,
participation, and entropy.

Here endeth the lesson.

\0x
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



--
Edward L. Platt
PhD student, University of Michigan School of Information
KC1DYK

Tips for stopping email overload: https://hbr.org/2012/02/stop-email-overload-1

This digital electronic mail message was sent from my general-purpose desktop personal computing machine.  Please forgive any overly-verbose, long-winded, rambling prose.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




--
-Ben
574-535-9199

transitiongoshen.org

Local initiatives for community resilience

Creative Investment in the Common Good

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss