Hmm, but how to decentralise it using code? The nearest thing at the moment is the delegation aspect, where you can retrieve your investment at any point if you're not happy with the direction it's taking. It does really rely on trust for the rest of it, which is why I feel that community leaders/founders should be open and honest about what they're doing and most try to be, which is how they earn the group's trust.
Something I've always done with HomeEdders is to lay out my thoughts and plans and invite the community to speak up if they have any ideas or disagree with any approaches and I regularly remind them that this is their community too. To be honest, I rarely get much response and with I did, because I don't always know what I'm doing. I haven't put any of my own money in, because I don't want to feel like it's mine and risk wanting to pull something from it. I also wouldn't request anyone else invest in it or even delegate. The delegations we have were just given with no request. Admittedly, I do wonder what I'd do if the community folded. If I had to step back, I'd hope that someone could the over. Best to pick someone who doesn't really want the responsibility, so the don't turn into that benevolent dictator, like @ryivhnn. 😜 Funnily enough, I only made the community because no-one else was stepping up. I'm happy just helping out other groups. If I had to disband the community I'd look at sharing it amongst the members or transferring to another community if that's what everyone wanted.
Yes, @buggedout certainly has some insight into problems within communities. I believe his speaking up and airing the problems was instrumental in working towards a change. I wasn't involved in the community, but his insights pointed out pitfalls to avoid.
The incident mentioned at the start isn't the only one that sparked this post. Yes, founders do need to expect the hard questions and many do expect them, but laying into them with assumptions before asking isn't helpful and is likely to just get them cut off. There are way more vindictive people here who would go much further too, as we well know from the flag wars. My policy, if I don't like they way things are done, is ask politely and/or walk away. No point in trying to control what you can't.
It can be decentralised within the code but it'd need more development work. Off the top of my head you could have a "workflow" for setting up a community. It could get set up as it does now - with a benevolant dictator type power so that a founder(s) could get it going, but once it matures, members have been added and it's ready to "float" you could have on-chain elections for moderators (or any required roles) and just brick the founder account. The community could then effectively self govern in a democratised, decentralised way.
Community assets are a bit trickier, but I believe there is a solution there that involves multi-signatory accounts that could be signed by elected mods. Again, more development needed but potentially this is not far away.
It'd be really interesting to see how they might work, and I like the idea of transparent elections for decisions, though it seems exhausting to have every single decision vetted. Sometimes you just gotta experiment on the fly and hope it'll work, sometimes decisions come from community discussion, sometimes they're just nothing really to lose sleep over.
As a community leader, I don't actually want to be a dictator, despite what others might think of me. But it's super hard to have the purse strings and have people trust you with them. Who is really to say I was going to walk away with the community funds and not distribute them to the people who've been working with the community? Transparency and trust are difficult here. Multi signatory accounts with trusted mods would be great - however, we'd be subject to same criticism - oh, that 'group' of people are siphoning money (even if the money was for their own time and effort, others might not see it that way). It's a nutty and complex issue.
As a leader (and to get this straight, I hate the term and I hate being one - I dont feel comfortable with it at all) I don't appreciate it when people demand things be done differently, in a quite rude, aggressive and confrontational manner (for example) - but they're always going to see my actions and decisions as going against the decentralised vibe of the place. In an ideal world, everyone would be polite and moderate, and we'd reach decisions together. Damn if I don't wish that all the time. I love and celebrate different ideas and I love suggestions and input and diverse voices, but sometimes you're going to get a 'team member' get nasty and whilst the group might all separately agree to cut loose that team member, the person is always going to see it as a dictatorship, no matter what. The leaders always cop the flak and are always held accountable even though they are trying to do the best for everyone and taking everyone's views into account. I think it's a rare community indeed that doesn't truly have the best interests of their community at heart and I don't think we've really had an instance yet of a leader truly doing 'the wrong thing'. And as Mini says, there's always another side to the story. I guess we're always taking that risk, trusting in community leaders to have our best interests at heart.
The other thing is - and I really agree with @eco-alex here - the community leaders are using the ones who put the vast majority of time and effort into all the front and back end work that has to be done to build and maintain a community, even if people don't see the work that goes into it. It's virtually impossible to find people that will put in similiar hours and passion and dedication - and honestly, the burn out is real. I'm so grateful for the team that helps me (one of which has the keys too, by the way - so I can't power down without him stopping it haha - and I trust him implicitly not to cut and run) and the amazing people who are the passion behind this community - honestly, melts my heart - but bottom line is the leader has to make the hard calls in the end and that's quite the burden.
I like @minismallholding's comment that
and @mattclarke's comment about walking with your feet, or starting up another community.
There's always going to be things you don't like about particular groups or how they're run, and that's fine - that's the beauty of choice.
Sorry I'm starting to ramble and maybe even talk in circles - I don't see an easy solution to people's disatisfaction with how communities might be run at all. All I know is that as a leader I operate from a place of good intention, and sometimes I get it right, and sometimes I don't. I rely on the community to advise and direct and assist me, but I can't tolerate unkindness and behaviour that goes against our core ethos, and when the majority suggests it's a good idea to ask someone to leave due to their behaviour or comments against people in the group, then that's the way it's gotta be. Communities can be really, really unpleasant when someone's being vindicative or aggressive, that's for sure. And just as we wouldn't tolerate it in real life, we simply can't tolerate it in communities. And I know a lot of leaders don't take these decisions lightly.
I hear you and there is a bit here, but I'll just touch a couple of points. You mention "Leader" a lot and my personal view is that the world needs to move away from having all powerful leaders and self-govern more.
I like the (old) idea of a "Representative" or even a "Custodian" who can be empowered by the community to do certain tasks or take certain responsibilities. Thats kind of how I see my own role in my own community. It doesn't mean I can't show some leadership, but I don't see myself as a "Leader" per se (capital L)
While I also support more direct democracy in the real world, it becomes unworkable to vote on every minute detail of every thing. People need to be empowered to make a few decisions and take responsibility for outcomes and if the community is not happy with those outcomes - then then just vote them out (dis-empower them)
We need to remember we are on a decentralised blockchain. If we're going to have any credibility we need to practise what we preach and show how the principles of decentralised governance and democratised technology can have real world applications that actually work.
Oh I hate the term leader - and I am always struggling for another word!!! I even feel uncomfortable seeing myself as one, and certainly didn't set out to be one in the traditional sense of the word. Custodian is nice - and I like what @angryman calls it too - founder.
Here's to decentralised solutions that work!
i dont think we need to decentralise the code.. nor do we need to complicate things. . WE can share the keys and base our relationships on trust. A community without trust is anyways not a community.. I like to keep things simple.. when the community leaders share the keys there is no one person who holds all the control.. decisions are then made as a group.. if there is one!
The reality is that there are Very few people who want to make the committment and time needed to warrant holding active keys or being in a position of that kind of responsibility. .. so i dont think this issue is nearly as important as it may at first seem.. we are as decentralised as we each wish to be. WE dont need the code to dictate that, we just need the freedom to operate that way, which we can if we choose it.
include @minismallholding
Sounds very democratic. It will be interesting to see how it works. It would require some physical involvement of members. I can imagine that, rather like real life, it would only be a few who take enough interest to be involved physically, but as long as everyone's happy, that's the main thing.
Nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu I am not managing communities again 🤣 this bloody crypto thing makes everything even worse 🤣
Damn, why didn't I say this? 'this bloody crypto thing makes it even worse' - that's so true!