opensource

Now here's a wacky idea: let's rule the planet by wiki. Quote metagovernment.org:

Metagovernment [...] is the system which will run a series of governments using a scored, versioned website as the medium for legislation and bureaucracy.

Huh? What have these guys been smoking? You don't save the planet by combining wikipedia-style proposal writing with slashdot-style voting.

And how, exactly, is this technocrat babble supposed to replace the tax-collecting, monopoly-of-violence apparatus of the State?

Open source governments begin with no power to use force or collect taxes. Periodically all existing governments at every level will be asked to cede power to the websites pertinent to their region.

And we'll all live happily ever after.... This stuff is just inane and counterproductive. Who wants to be ruled by a Wiki cabal?

The open source movement has a lot to contribute towards better functioning political systems: a culture of transparancy, proven patterns for decentralized collective action, and a substantial influence in, and understanding of, technology culture.

Of course open source is politically relevant. Reducing politics to an exercise in software version control is not, however, a valuable contribution to that debate...

The following @LinuxJournal caught my eye:

Open Source has won. We've moved into Gandhicon 4. Now what?

This refers to a simple but powerful model for the adoption of open source:

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

And we do seem to have crossed over to the fourth, last stage: Gandhicon 4, in which we win.

Just take a look at the news emanating from Redmond lately:

• Facing Free Software, Microsoft looks to Yahoo.
• Microsoft opens it's programming interfaces.
• Windows Server incorporates the lessons of open source software.

Not every project can succeed. Now Mitch Kapor leaves OSAF, the chances for Chandler to fulfill it's vision have become very slim indeed.