"And I do feel that while my overall points last night to Ryking about the openness of ideas and allowing the community on the tag to determine what gets the most play are still valid, I feel I owe him an apology for not fully understanding what Shoq was doing, or his moves up until now.

That being said, where to from here? Too much freedom on the tag will lead to people like Shoq co-opting the hard work people are putting in. Too much structure and we risk becoming #tcot.

Then again, I suppose we could set the bar at, "No one does anything that would affect the whole community unless it had achieved consensus at the Thursday Tweetchat""

I see two interrelated issues here:

1. #p2 and any crowdsourcing project only succeed if people feel vested and valued. Leaders must be able to emerge independently and they should be encouraged to push forward on their own projects (especially if they are able to inspire a following behind them). If we stifle this, we will lose the innovative spirit that is driving #p2 to prominence and that will ensure that it will be sustainable for the long term!

2. As with any crowdsourcing project, the question of who gets to speak for the group and in what manner leadership generally functions are issues that are front and center. For example, we can't have everyone involved in this project able to change the messaging about #p2, as that would allow a situation whereas someone like Shoq could announce "#p2 decides to embrace innovative #p4p concept" with no one able to stop it. However, on the flip side, hopefully there will be so much organizing on varying causes occurring on #p2 that central leadership will not be able to personally take part in every single press release.

What we need is a foundation that provides the framework to answer these questions and come to these decisions. In fact, I think it might be the most important issue to address at this point!

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?