I think wider discussion of micro-bureaucracies would be valuable. During the November meta, a member requested some kind of vote on our descision to defederate nazi instances, which I think was adequately discussed and concluded. It stood out to me that the member objected to my description of voting in this manner as ‘bureaucratic’ – a word I felt I was using descriptively, but was interpreted as pejorative. I think it’s interesting that different people have different definitions of bureaucracy.
I think there are a number of definitions in use. The term often implies hierarchy (through, that’s not how it’s being used here). Here it’s being used to describe an entity that systematically manages resources (including knowing). I probably could have continued with the microservice metaphor, but I felt like that would alienate folks who aren’t familiar with tech.
There’s definitely a negative connotation. I feel like I need to read “Utopia of Rules” to have a better understanding of his critique. I am sort of referencing the “forms of domination” from Dawn of Everything, in that a large bureaucracy can be leveraged into power over people. That is, if you manage a resource for someone you can end up with power over them. Thus making it smaller reduces the impact in case the system must be abandoned or replaced.
Really, we’re talking about various forms of commons management (folks should refer to Elinor Ostrom’s work). Everything we do or share together is a type of commons, and the term here is referring to the machinery of management.
I would probably go on to say that slrpnk.net is itself a commons managed by this type of micro-bureaucracy. I mean this in a good way. In saying this, I also mean that the VSM would be a good tool for auditing the health of the organization (it’s always good to keep in mind and keep healthy). Graeber was an amazing anthropologist and thinker, but I don’t think his critique was informed by cybernetics or organizational theory. I think that I have a more positive connotation for the word than the negative one I get from his writing.
To make this all concrete (using slrpnk.net as an example), I could imagine an affinity group (as described here) recognizing the value of this site. A services committee meeting may then agree that a couple of members of the affinity group should support administration. So then these folks would ask to join the admin team. The works committee could determine that they should use general funds to donate to hosting on a regular basis.
Perhaps members of the existing admin team here might start their own affinity group. Their works committee provides labor and funds to support the site. At some point the two affinity groups discover each other and federate into a collective. Via some collective agreements the second affinity group agrees to take some portion of the hosting cost on occasion in acorn bread and mead made by the first affinity group. The second affinity group transfers the money they would have spent on food and booze to hosting and spends a bit less over all, the first spends a little bit less since they’re making things themselves, both get to support the project.
The micro-bureaucracy of slrpnk.net becomes the responsibility of the collective to support, but that doesn’t mean it’s then taken over by the collective. It remains an open public good. This becomes an example of the especifismo concept of “social insertion” (at least as best as I understand it).
I think wider discussion of micro-bureaucracies would be valuable. During the November meta, a member requested some kind of vote on our descision to defederate nazi instances, which I think was adequately discussed and concluded. It stood out to me that the member objected to my description of voting in this manner as ‘bureaucratic’ – a word I felt I was using descriptively, but was interpreted as pejorative. I think it’s interesting that different people have different definitions of bureaucracy.
What is bureaucracy?
I think there are a number of definitions in use. The term often implies hierarchy (through, that’s not how it’s being used here). Here it’s being used to describe an entity that systematically manages resources (including knowing). I probably could have continued with the microservice metaphor, but I felt like that would alienate folks who aren’t familiar with tech.
There’s definitely a negative connotation. I feel like I need to read “Utopia of Rules” to have a better understanding of his critique. I am sort of referencing the “forms of domination” from Dawn of Everything, in that a large bureaucracy can be leveraged into power over people. That is, if you manage a resource for someone you can end up with power over them. Thus making it smaller reduces the impact in case the system must be abandoned or replaced.
Really, we’re talking about various forms of commons management (folks should refer to Elinor Ostrom’s work). Everything we do or share together is a type of commons, and the term here is referring to the machinery of management.
I would probably go on to say that slrpnk.net is itself a commons managed by this type of micro-bureaucracy. I mean this in a good way. In saying this, I also mean that the VSM would be a good tool for auditing the health of the organization (it’s always good to keep in mind and keep healthy). Graeber was an amazing anthropologist and thinker, but I don’t think his critique was informed by cybernetics or organizational theory. I think that I have a more positive connotation for the word than the negative one I get from his writing.
To make this all concrete (using slrpnk.net as an example), I could imagine an affinity group (as described here) recognizing the value of this site. A services committee meeting may then agree that a couple of members of the affinity group should support administration. So then these folks would ask to join the admin team. The works committee could determine that they should use general funds to donate to hosting on a regular basis.
Perhaps members of the existing admin team here might start their own affinity group. Their works committee provides labor and funds to support the site. At some point the two affinity groups discover each other and federate into a collective. Via some collective agreements the second affinity group agrees to take some portion of the hosting cost on occasion in acorn bread and mead made by the first affinity group. The second affinity group transfers the money they would have spent on food and booze to hosting and spends a bit less over all, the first spends a little bit less since they’re making things themselves, both get to support the project.
The micro-bureaucracy of slrpnk.net becomes the responsibility of the collective to support, but that doesn’t mean it’s then taken over by the collective. It remains an open public good. This becomes an example of the especifismo concept of “social insertion” (at least as best as I understand it).