open source is not about democracy!

[mr Amsterdam]

RU Serious obviously doesn't understand what Open Source means, nor democracy.
Open Source means that you give the sourcecode of software together with the product (software-package), and usually you're allowed to do with it what you want.
This has nothing to do with a political system called democracy.

What he probably was thinking about is the 'community' thing that often goes hand in hand with some open-soure development and the fact that that everyone is free to join. However, working with a community to accomplish a certain goal is usually not related to open-source. And many open-source project are created by 1, 2, or 3 people, and that is not a community, nor a democracy...etc.

When open-source can be compared to a political system, then the closest thing would be a Technocracy or (and this is what mostly happens in open-source projects) a Meritocracy (wiki it.).

But anyway, he does have a point (somewhere). In my opinion America is very close to a dictatorship; in (for example) Irak people were free to vote for 1 candidate. In the US there are 2.
And unfortunately, many believe that this is the difference between democracy and dictatorship. I think the difference is just one puppet.

[Triple McSlice]

Sure it is. The whole point of open source software is that its development doesn't end once the original design team releases the product to the public. Anyone with (and sometimes without) programming acumen can then take the original code and modify it to their specifications, with varying degrees of success. Often, he or she will release this to the public as an alternate distribution. That's democracy.

Consider each distribution, or even a single line of modified code, to represent a vote. That's you saying, this is how I think this software should run. Your contribution, your vote, can be as large or small as you like. Meritocracy comes in when the users at large decide whether your product is any good. Our political system provides for sort of a weak, delayed-reaction meritocracy: if the people don't like the way a politician performs, then in principle they don't elect him for a second term. Censure and impeach, if necessary, but these are difficult tactics to use, and messy on top of that.

Part of the reason why we're in trouble now is that the inertia characteristic to real-world government makes it difficult to ensure that our leaders and legislators deserve office, and more difficult still to diplomatically affect change. For this reason, I think, people here want a transparent, streamlined, easily-renovated democratic process. Sort of like open-source.

[Biviano]

Dude chill out. Your taking the title of the Open Source Party way too seriously. You probabally like to quote the bible alot. The concept of letting the pople have control is, in my opinion, what Mr. Sirius has in mind. Dude maybe you should be more open minded. Leave the title. That way people will research where it came from and then they'll ask themselves.... Wait we don't have to pay for software? Wait...we shouldn't have to pay for health care or the income tax either. Let them make the two connections the way you have. Maybe then we'll change the title.

Leave it alone for now.

[Triple McSlice]

Come on, play nice. I think Amsterdam was pointing a valid criticism at the title, which he thought inaccurate. Shouting him down and calling him a Bible thumper isn't a fair. In fact, it's kind of authoritarian.

[Biviano]

Sorry for the bible quoting jibe. I will play nice. But if we get bogged down on the title we can't expect to get much done. Thank you for putting me in my place dude.

[mr Amsterdam]

lmao! :)

well, yes, perhaps i'm a bit of a purist when it comes to free-software/ open-source / whatever. (sorry :)

I've seen the words 'open source' being abused by companies,marketeers, managers, etc. and i hope it doesn't turn into something ugly when it's being used in politics. (This is what has happened a few times with words like 'freedom', 'democracy', 'terrorism' , etc.)

But, the choice of words / semantics actually is important. It forms the basis of any idea. The first thing one has to do to spread an new idea is to avoid confusion and uncertainty. (Introducing a new word is often easier then trying to bend the meaning of something that already exists. )

There has already been a lot of debate about 'open-source' vs. 'free-software' , and i'm afraid that the discussion will start over again, but now in a 'political' arena. (more info: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html ) . So lets be smarter and avoid this discussion before it starts.

[Michael]

The choice of words is important, yeah. That's why it's crucial that the word "open" is in there. "Source," OK, that I'm not so insistent on -- but it's the openness that's lacking now.

I'll give you your larger point regarding appropriation of terms, though. And 2004's attempt at "Politics 2.0", which made some advances, I thought, turned out to be viewed by the Democratic Party largely as a way to get a lot more money out of the populace without actually changing the way they worked -- which you can see by the use of that never-a-win hack Bob Shrum in Kerrey's excuse for an election campaign, and (lately) by the fact that the party still talks a tepid game against the Administration without actually taking any substantive action.

No, it's still all about the money, and it's not about good governance. That's what openness should change. Or so I'd love to believe.

[Michael]

The idea of open source is to give your time to the community and to be recognized for it in return. It's a gift economy.

It's also the idea that if you see something broken, you fix it -- you're allowed to fix it, and encouraged to fix it. Every little bit makes a difference in the overall project, and if you get a bunch of smart cookies together, things can get fixed very quickly indeed.

So RUS's point is (as I see it) this: wouldn't it be nice to apply this group-based decision/work process to problems in the real world, using the hardware we already have: our existing governments? And yeah, my answer is: yes! Yes.

I've got no fricking clue how and neither does anybody else. And there will be a whole hell of a lot of discussion necessary before it's even clear what we're doing. But I do know this: it's important. The system is broken, but you know what? So's most software, and we fix that.

The first thing is to apply some of the methodology. What are our change requests? What are the things we can actually agree on? This should be hammered out by something like a multi-dimensional, hierarchically organized, megapolling system or something. Each point of logic should be represented by arguments pro and con, and those arguments in turn subject to debate. The result might be a statement of purpose. And that might in turn be a political platform, or it might not.

I'm pretty excited by this whole idea. I don't know what it means yet, mind you, but I've always considered the open source notion a force for good in the world, and it would be a good thing indeed to apply it to a more general problem set.

[Sedicious]

As others have said, I think you're being overly literal in your reading of the name, and underestimating RU Sirius. But I agree with you anyway, that it's not a very good name, in the long-run. We should work on a better one, at some point fairly soon. If it gets people's attention, though, right now, and spurs the brain-storming, then I think it will have been a very successful working name.

I also think it's important to keep in mind, though, the difference between a governmental institutional structure, and a political party structure. I think there is much more room for innovation in party structure, and that the Dean campaign really went a long way toward demonstrating one way that might work, with how little centralized control they took in the management of that campaign. The processes of actual voting, etc., might not really need to be changed very much, if we could effect radical change just in the way that one major party worked.

[RU Sirius]

>
As others have said, I think you're being overly literal in your reading of the name, and underestimating RU Sirius.
>

I've heard that being misunderestimated is the key to winning the presidency.

Yeah, exactly. Literalists and purists need not apply, although they are certainly welcome to be part of the mix if they see some value in joining with illiteralists to attain some goals. And yes, I've been learning and talking to people about Open Source since the late '80s. Interviewed Richard Stallman -- of course, another purist who insists on Free rather than Open Source. good luck to all a ya...

[Jon Lebkowsky]

If the application of Open Source thinking to poitics is conceptually new to you, you haven't been paying attention.

If you don't think Open Source is inherently political, then you haven't given it enough thought. Make it your koan.

[Yodhe]

I don't like the name "Open Source".

It strikes me as being too routed in the concept of technological liberation, and cyber culture. Or as I am wont to say as a throwaway term "that is so last millenia" ;)

I would like to see an article by R.U. on why he "proposed the name", which while might be obvious to the techno-literati, needs an explanation in political terms, and how the lessons of the open-source computer movement might be applied practically. This is particularly relevant in a society where the dominant political government factions, are apt to take open-source ideas, and use them for their own political agendas (the ecological movement seems to be an example of this), and effectively remove them from the public domain through their cartel practices. Where climate change becomes just another capitalist industry, much like what has happened to the alternative health practices (at least in the UK).

[Michael]

Well, OK, but that's something that the open-source movement has had to contend with all along -- corporations are bound to want to privatize the commons, that's more or less what they're for, right? But it really doesn't matter at all -- if they benefit, so what? The key is that the open source project is still there and will continue to benefit everyone else at the same time.

The way this would work in the political arena is less open source as simply, you know, glasnost. Hey -- glasnost and perestroika brought down one evil empire, so it ought to be good for the other one, too.