Tsk, tsk, Matthew—that was *my* example, just above. The reason I picked it is because they are, indeed, an extremely well organized group of people—which gives them some legitimacy. (Not that it prevented Appelbaum from joining.)
So: are you now saying that: a) what you call a "community" is a group of people who are as organized as Debian, at the high cost that Debian is paying for that organizational overhead? With a constitution, elections, social contract, sponsoring, and very rigid set of processes for delegating power?
Or are you saying that b) every "set of people that's drawn" should, somehow, be forced to organize themselves (and pay the same price) as the Debian developers; that it is objectionable for random sets of souls to see themselves drawn to common interests without systematically erecting such rigid structures?
(Because you still haven't defined "community"—just given a single example, and an extreme one at that. You know very well that Debian is "unpopular" enough that very few people end up with the professional obligation of subscribing to the aforementioned contracts, and that Debian is perfectly usable professionally without joining any of the activities & conferences organized by the project.)
I see the advantages of a) when applied on a small scale, but I don't believe you can "scale it up" significantly within society without triggering serious back-pressure, as that would be inflating "bubbles" of inaccessibility to non-subscribers. This will only exacerbate tensions between an (increasingly official) ingroup, and the outgroup which opposes the contract—whichever their reasons may be.
b) is lunacy, unless you want to get rid of freedom of assembly.
And if you mean "somewhere in between"—which is not the example you have given—I would encourage you to at least somewhat clarify what the legal framework of what you are calling "community" and "membership" would be.
I am fine with you pointing out abhorrent behaviors, particularly when serial and unrepentant. But you are now writing essays about organizing & generalizing "punishing," "disciplining," etc. in "communities," and that is not okay—particularly when there is not a whim of a legal framework to back it up.
Re: "Discipline"? "Members"? What kind of "community" are you talking about?
So: are you now saying that: a) what you call a "community" is a group of people who are as organized as Debian, at the high cost that Debian is paying for that organizational overhead? With a constitution, elections, social contract, sponsoring, and very rigid set of processes for delegating power?
Or are you saying that b) every "set of people that's drawn" should, somehow, be forced to organize themselves (and pay the same price) as the Debian developers; that it is objectionable for random sets of souls to see themselves drawn to common interests without systematically erecting such rigid structures?
(Because you still haven't defined "community"—just given a single example, and an extreme one at that. You know very well that Debian is "unpopular" enough that very few people end up with the professional obligation of subscribing to the aforementioned contracts, and that Debian is perfectly usable professionally without joining any of the activities & conferences organized by the project.)
I see the advantages of a) when applied on a small scale, but I don't believe you can "scale it up" significantly within society without triggering serious back-pressure, as that would be inflating "bubbles" of inaccessibility to non-subscribers. This will only exacerbate tensions between an (increasingly official) ingroup, and the outgroup which opposes the contract—whichever their reasons may be.
b) is lunacy, unless you want to get rid of freedom of assembly.
And if you mean "somewhere in between"—which is not the example you have given—I would encourage you to at least somewhat clarify what the legal framework of what you are calling "community" and "membership" would be.
I am fine with you pointing out abhorrent behaviors, particularly when serial and unrepentant. But you are now writing essays about organizing & generalizing "punishing," "disciplining," etc. in "communities," and that is not okay—particularly when there is not a whim of a legal framework to back it up.