Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I learned about the essay, and read it, because of one of the previous times it came up here at HN. (A search find 7 other matches; the one with the most comments is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7555013 .)

It's definitely influence my way of thinking about "open-allocation style organizations", if I understand your meaning correctly. Eg, one group I'm loosely associated with strongly asserts that it's unstructured, and declares that anyone can do anything. As a result, it doesn't seem to actually do anything except act as a boasting point for one of the original founders.

While another, which I used to be closely associated with, has an organizational structure, yearly meetings, GSOC participation, etc.



This is what I meant: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_allocation

BTW, are you Andrew Dalke?


Thanks for the link. And yes, I am.


Which one did you prefer or like better?


The one with structure and specific goals, public organization meetings, elections to specific positions, and a hand-off of leadership over time.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: