On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, markdeb.browne at comcast.net wrote: > From: Elvedin Trnjanin <trnja001 at umn.edu> > >> I remember your idea of setting up a non-profit and also the reaction >> of it being too pointless to peruse. Why do some seem to think that >> "leadership" means bureaucracy and all that associated 'crap'? All it >> means is someone (or a group) taking charge to get something done. It's >> been happening before - how did the previous installfests and meetings >> get organized? Someone took charge, or leadership if you will, to get >> it done. > > There it is again - Someone. > > What is implied is "Someone else." > If you want to do it - do it! It is a good thing that anyone is allowed to take action. The problem with that scheme in a leaderless group is that it is even more likely that no one will do anything. People, especially new enthusiastic members will tend to sit back and wait. If there were a leader (say, "President"), that individual could send a message to the group requesting proposals for presentations or installfests, or whatever. The leaderless approach sounds good, but in the real world, in just about every culture in every time and place, we have had leaders. It just works well with human nature. With a democratic system, we can eliminate coercive or ineffectual leaders. In the worst case scenario, we end up dumping a bad leader and are back to what we have now. Mike