[hackerspaces] a study of governance

[Xer0Dynamite]

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