Re: governance should probably come first - past models and next steps

Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout(a)zaclys.net&gt; writes: > [...] "assemblées générales" where every member is welcome and > has a voice? Dear Léo, You raise an important point that we need to be aware of even if we decide to go with a more structured governance. I am an astrophysicist and not a political theorist, so I can't say authoritatively state at what level of complexity a direct democracy would become unwieldy. I had a friend who joined a Quaker group and described their approach to decision making -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Quaker-based_model -- and it seemed fascinating, although very time consuming. But I think that most of the time projects evolve toward a board election approach as being more practical and saving time, and then the role of democracy becomes one of being able to remove board members. I know that I do not like dealing with many things and am happy when others do :-) But at a lower level of complexity I like small teams that play Cruyff-style "total football". So is the GNU Assembly that big? Will it get that big? When does it need to go the way of a board? How does money come in to it?