Security has a concept called attack surface: the more kinds of exposures, the greater the attack surface. Similarly we can think of governance as having an argument surface: the more kinds of decisions there are to argue over, the less functional the institution will be.
-
Are you saying that the bazaar style open sourced projects are less functional? The meritocratic governance model with a bunch of people reporting bugs seems to work quite well compared to the cathedral style.
The main improvement comes from limiting the scope for decision-making: e.g. Bitcoin, which, since last summer's dispute with the "Big Arguers", who wanted the blockchain to do more, has narrowed its goals for the blockchain, pushing retail payments to a different layer.
-
-
But does pushing some decisions to a different layer really change the "argument surface"? Doesn't it just mean "governance" now includes more institutions than if one institution makes all the decisions?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.