Much has been written in this forum of, on one hand, the "imperative 
of," and on the other, the "anathema of" formulating a 
committee-qua-committee, defined not by the program, but by some 
communally reached statement of purpose.  I noted that it is foolish to 
insist upon choosing between a community-driven artifact and an 
artifact-driven community, noting that they are inherently co-dependent 
notions, neither well-defined without the other.

Nothing in this colloquy has led me to reconsider that view.  I am more 
convinced than ever that a community defined by some theoretical purpose 
rather than an underlying program is doomed to irrelevance, and that an 
ossified artifact program to define a community is likewise doomed.  The 
looser the structure of the community, the better and more flexible it 
will be.  As I was reading some recent criticism of Cas Sunstein's 
"REPUBLIC.COM," the following 1992 quote by Dave Clark of MIT caught my 
eye:

	"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough 
consensus and running code."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1135 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20010603/c1727c3f/attachment.bin