to remember. We definitely should not just be quiet either--that will only get us more ignored and out of the way of sweeping all to the conservatives. How can so many people think abandoning all the Democratic principles talked about above is the right thing? Are they all so "dogwhistled" by the D behind the name that they tell themselves publicly touting the wrong values is just a head fake?

Seriously, how much of this do you remember with Kerry?

BTW, thrilled to see the book format for PB 2.0. Excellent work.

P.S. Didn't have to time to read it all--is Susie's stuff there too? And what about pb and j 2.0?

(which is the name of a newspaper in DiscWorld, a fantasy....)

It turns out that most people don't care about the truth, think that what "everybody knows" is the truth, and really want to read stories about naughty vegetables shaped like the zuchinni of chastisement.

I hate to think that circulation-building demands truthiness. That would be bad.

But it's also true that if you don't get read, there's no point writing anything, including the truth.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

This reminds me of a situation we have here in Zone 5b. A big mill will pollute the countryside for years (heavy metals, leachate, name it) and then the corporation will shut it down, leaving all the toxicity to be dealt with by the locals, if at all. They "move on."

That seems to be the attitude to our discourse as well; the Casey fauxtrage is an example. If I understand the issue correctly, Casey is being granted a speaking slot entirely to rectify a manufactured and completely false story. That's about as toxic a discourse as you can get.

It's as if you have to buy into and believe a list of lies to get admitted to the inner sanctum -- lies which can be shown to be lies through a minimal examination of the public record, and yet which are endlessly repeated by our famously free press.

[pounds head on desk]

What to do? And how to get people to read and participate when it is being done?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

It’s as if you have to buy into and believe a list of lies to get admitted to the inner sanctum — lies which can be shown to be lies through a minimal examination of the public record, and yet which are endlessly repeated by our famously free press.

that is the most perfect description of the Versailles Villagers I have ever seen, and increasingly true of certain parts of netroots.

Not within the blogosphere, but without. I've talked to a number of people, mostly older women, who see the media in a whole new light after the way Clinton was treated. Suddenly people they liked and trusted in the news, they don't like and trust anymore. It goes beyond simply seeing the bias in opinion, but to questioning the accuracy of the reporting. Many of them participated in one way or another in the campaign or watched it way more closely than they usually do. So they know that a lot of what was reported was untrue. That's a key thing to get people to see. And many people saw clearly this election. That so many people who used to see clearly decided to put on blinders remains depressing, but at least there is some good news out of this disaster.

Sure, we got the same result we got in earlier elections. But some previously closed eyes were opened and that's an important thing to also remember.

I still think the greatest thing Hillary Clinton brought to the table - and what made her truly dangerous to the Village no matter her centrist policies - is the ability to get a lot of Americans to ignore the media. She did better as the campaign went on even as the media got worse and worse (which, of course, is one of the reasons why they hate her).

One is the truth (v. truthiness) that is so important. If we are blog-reporters, op-ed contributors, etc., truth counts all the same.

The other is what we want our Presidential (almost)nominees (both sides) to be like. What's our role encouraging/suggesting/critiquing that?
It may vary if we are being reporters or doing an op-ed or an emotional rant, etc. (maybe we should have section headings?)

As far as both of these ideas, truth and almost-nominee character, we can't just ignore some things, primarily the existence of conservative ideas. Many progressives I know want to ignore them in Obama--and in McCain; in short, avoid discussing them all together. I seriously think that we must acknowledge both bad behavior--and good--by Obama on an on-going basis (including reevaluations of his past behavior); and both good behavior--and bad--by McCain, including his policies and his placement in the race. We should reward good behavior by anyone--party invariance (why don't we call it issues/values invariance again?) And we should be able to realistically discuss the horse race without being required to constantly restate our true progressive credentials and/or ideals. First off, you can't require people you talk to to pledge their votes to Obama or you won't even talk to them. Secondly, how can liberals win if they are not even willing to look realistically at the race? I got fooled by what happened with Kerry, thought he was going to win, think he did win (Ohio people went to jail for vote fraud) but not by enough to prevent a vote steal throwing the election to Bush. I was studying the race and I didn't see it coming, couldn't understand why more people didn't vote for the experienced Kerry who had many good ideas. So I am keeping my eyes especially open this time around, looking at and listening to many groups of people, reading the polls, etc. I have found that many of my progressive friends and family are unwilling to discuss the race--with anyone--even though they freely admit stats and analysis are available--they "just don't want to hear it." How can you win races with this attitude?

Thanks very much for hosting! And your nice intro and links!

it generally isn’t given credit for."

Very true.

That's one way to reach the 18 million, they are focused on some basic things about politics and let the rest go by as noise?

There's a point where blue-skying has to stop and getting it done has to start?

No?

Is it time to stop muttering over the plan and start building the barn?

For instance, you make a good point about inconvenient truth and civility. But the latter doesn't necessarily preclude the former, just as bluntness doesn't always equal honesty. Sometimes bluntness is just cover for a jerk.

I wodner if procedurals would be more helpful as just a way to get started.

Picking up from Ohio's comment, what specific proposals have been tossed around in these discussions that ought to be parts of a candidate solution.

The most concrete one that I recall is something akin to a webring or "alliance," a confederation of blogs with various voices but some common set of principles.

This would require a form of governance, to decide who's in, who's out, etc.

our particular blog coalition (CW) or the entire extended formerly pb 1.0 blogosphere?

at various points but I'm not sure they were all immediately galvinizing ideas...

Are you looking for a catalyst for right now?

Updated Platform (by all, written up by TP)

1. Ethical blogger code
2. More infrastructure for networking
3. Long term goals and vision
4. Stated shared principles
5. Impartially structured critique of media
6. Rigorous clear-eyed assessments of candidates and their actions
7. Discussions of what justice, fairness, etc. are
8. Discussions of what pragmatic, modern day politics can do and should not do about justice, fairness, etc.
9. Knowledgeable and conscientious editors/arbiters who can and will point out which people know what they’re talking about and which ones have no clue
10. System for tags on the above ideas across blogs and websites

So here are a few of the questions and ideas for PB 2.0 systems people came up with:

1. How best can PB 2.0 protect itself from assault by partisans and corporate astroturfing disinformation campaigns? Assuming those are different things. [Hat tip: Goldberry]

2. Should PB 2.0 be a legal entity along the lines of CPB? [Hat tip: Goldberry] Or — thinking outside the box here — along the lines of a megachurch?

3. Should PB 2.0 have a business model? Servers cost money. Ads? Subscriptions? Passing the hat? [Hat tip: TnJen]

4. How do we flatten the power curve? Typically for the Internet, as PB 1.0 shook out, there were a very, very few high traffic blogs, with a steep shoulder of lower traffic blogs, and then a “long tail” of very low traffic blogs. Not only are the few high traffic blogs more vulnerable to assault by corporate and partisan forces (assuming those to be different) than a more evenly balanced system would be, having an “A,”- “B”-, and “The Rest” List smacks altogether too much of the two-tier, authoritarian model so prevalent elsewhere under the Conservative ascendancy. [Hat tip: Lambert and FrenchDoc]

5. How do we create a system where seeking truth, and not selling truthiness, is the highest value? [Hat tip: BTD and VastLeft]

6. How can PB 2.0 create face-to-face activism, “instead of this Intertubes stuff”? [Big tip of the ol’ chapeau to Bruce Dixon; our problems are not, primarily, technical in nature!]

7. Is AA a good organizational model? [Hat tip: Caro] Like old school bloggers, not only is AA anonymous (“spiritual foundation of our tradtions”) it hasn’t been captured by partisans or corporations. Indeed, AA might be said to be the epitome of the decentralized and mutually accountable network. [Hat tip: FrencDoc]

8. Should PB 2.0 be “party invariant”? [Hat tip: gqmartinez] Strange bedfellows are bad why?]

9. Is ruthless moderation necessary? [Hat tip: Nadal]

10. Do we need to make shared principles and purposes explicit? [Hat tip: Truth Partisan]

NOTE * Of course, YMMV by individual bloggers; some remained intact, while others totally lost it. I’m talking about PB 1.0 as a system, as a network of interconnected blogs. Taken as a system, the discourse produced by PB 1.0 was toxic.

UPDATE I forgot to say that one way to connect te “intertubes” with “face-to-face” is through project software, especially if the project teams are not geographically dispersed.

I see from various buttons that I could digg this post, google this post, yahoo this post, etc. What I don't see (maybe I'm missing it) is a link to email this post to a friend. A lot of people don't spend all that much time on-line, especially older folks. What almost everyone does, however, is read email (and links contained in email). Hell, until her stroke, even my grandmother had email. And, yes, I know that it's not that hard to download a link to your email and send it. I also know I'm more likely to email an article with one of those nice little links. Because I don't have to go to my mail program to do it or open up my webmail in another window.

And my guess is that folks who come here or to other blogs to read something and then like what they read are more likely to come back, even if they don't regularly read blogs. Then they use your links and slowly uncover the blog world.

* Promotion of intellectual tools that do not reproduce conservative / libertarian / media-favored frames by bringing back the social (as opposed to the individual / judgmental frameworks)
* Promotion of redistribution of rights, opportunities and resources
* Promotion of the ways in which current institutions can be reformed to create a more just society (again, where rights, opportunities and resources are more equally redistributed… we may be equal in terms of rights under the law, but in the absence of equal opportunities and resources, it’s meaningless) here and globally (World Bank, IMF, WTO)

Our goal: a more just society here and globally. Reducing /eliminating structural violence. Avoid symbolic violence (the lowest form of which is the use of demeaning nicknames).

The challenge is to find the structure to promote this far and wide.

Why does this site crash my IE browser? It's done it almost all day today and most of yesterday. Every once in awhile it lets me on, but mostly I get an error message (and yes I know IE sucks).

There is one other extended list, of questions pb 2.0 (and we) need to answer from the 4th philosophical pb 2.0--do you want that with all its extended philosophical questions (which make it better but quite long) or a shortened version?

in the pb 2.0 sessions, but all the entire pb 2.0's can be read here:

Progressive Blogosphere 2.0 -- The Book

I need to check out for a while, but I'll come back in later.

My kick-off topic probably wasn't the ideal one to propel us toward an action plan, but I've felt the weight from within and without to STFU about the real world reasons for why we feel a new PB is needed, and I don't want to see that reality taken off the table.

It's been a depressing week in the leftysphere, seeing bloggers whom I really respect doing a little kabuki dance of pretending that this is an ordinary Democrat vs. Republican election, and pumping up absurd narratives about John McCain's ads when the simple reality of his record is plenty damning enough. Covering up for Obama's failings offers us little hope of influencing him in the few remaining months when maybe we could.

As I've observed before, it was much easier for us to have solidarity against so pernicious a force as Bush. The bar was set so low for Obama -- be more progressive than the famously centrist Hillary Clinton, and he has proven so extraordinarily unwilling or unable to meet that bar, and the leftysphere has been so limited in its interest in doing something about it, that we're en route to four to eight years of nowhere near good enough for the crises we're facing.

I surely wish for a new PB, but it's hard sometimes to be future oriented when watching a train wreck play out before your eyes.

Perhaps there is someone among you with a captivating vision of the future which can energize us for the long haul -- I see seeds of that in the suggestions to date. If you find such a direction, I'll be there rowing along with you!

“...in every post, you have to present a short rebuttal of your own argument, with at least one link” — are in play, they are easily verifiable by anyone."

Kewl, I love it, but maybe people could partner up? Having to present the opposite argument is an excellent idea but time-consuming to do well. Could people work in partnerships?

With the Dogme Manifesto?

"It’s the day after the trainwreck.
What systems would you want in place then?
That’s the system we want to put in place now."

Great idea. (Although those other little trains are really still out there crossing our tracks and needing to be dealt with...)Sort of a think-tank, in 10 year ideal.

One thing I have been thinking about is how to affect matters on a very small scale, local level -- which is where all the toxic waste is left after the corps "move on."

We can't raise enough money to affect a national or even a state race. But we could affect a local race -- a zoning commission, or a school board.

I would like to see if PB 2.0 can provide a forum or ability to connect local effort all around the country by enabling people to tell their stories (a new "narrative") and give support to each other.

I agree with Ohio and the others that some sort of corporate entity ("open...." something-or-other) is needed as an umbrella, since money is going to be raised and handled (even if only on the "beer budget" level). But it's also got to be decentralized. No board of directors or anything like that. Maybe the "procedural" idea could be the test here?

I think that galvanization will come soon enough when (a) localities realize they have shared problems and (b) the power structures react and the reaction goes up the chain.

I don't know whether this vision is possible. Someone with more experience than me?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Nice piece, VasLeft. Good use of links.

I don't think my blog, Remain Calm, delves into the type of behavior you reject, but I'd be happy if you pointed out any failings.

I think elites are alright, maybe I am one. I've had enough of 7 years of Joe Schmoe Presidents. Certain of the President's bad decisions, regardless of the putative inputs of comic-book darklords like Cheney and Big Oil, must be laid directly at the feet of an incompetent man.

Obama is certainly the lesser of two evils.

It's also strange that you are complaining about his shifts to the right, while the right is suggesting he's really a closet marxist, linking him to Chicago's now-defunct New Party, Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, and, of course, community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Neither man is me,
and will not meet my expectations,
but one man favors one war,
while the other favors three.

1. "How should we post?" -- Dogme (the procedural)

2. "Why should we post?" -- Principles, "we believe", "progressive"

3. "Where should we post?" -- decentralized structure

4. "Who should post?" -- those who adhere to the dogme*

5. "What should we post?" -- truthful narrative

Organizational: Legal entity; handles money; progressive tax; shared headline and alert system.

Thoughts?

* #2 flows from #1. But #1 is verifiable and #2 is not.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Whereas, if principles — “in every post, you have to present a short rebuttal of your own argument, with at least one link” — are in play, they are easily verifiable by anyone.

come on, how many of us are stealing time from work. how much work can you put into comments

I confess I don't get the PB2.0 series. I mean something really dreadful happened this year, but I am not sure what we can do about it, save try to offer an alternative for them as wants it.

what if a previously trusted PB2.0 blog went on the rails? We saw plenty of that this year. What is the enforcement mechanism? Or is PB2.0 like the French Impressionists? A loose association of like minded bloggers who you recognize when you see it?

Nice to see you!

We can be French Impressionist-like bloggers with deep plum purple shirts...

'Cos they are different..."Moderation rotation" would be excellent and key for retaining people but I think everyone would have to be paid. Setting aside the time to moderate every x weeks would take away the ability to generate income at those times.

opposing view--or that would be included? Say, 100 word rebuttal?

Yeah, if that had been followed, WKJM wouldn't have had the same problems...

There have certainly been great great posts here by Vast Left and Lambert and French Doc--among others--that were over 500 words.

We could make it so you couldn't even post a post unless the length was right etc.--things could bounce so you could try again. That would decrease human moderation.

We could also have pro and con bloggers as a team, kind of like bloggingheadstv--in print or I suppose in radio or tv.

What one thing--of all our ideas--could we implement tomorrow? Start testing for pb 2.0?

And I know someone who makes little painted...oh wait, they are guinea pig ornaments.

What was the deal with advertising and not doing it? Was it a freedom/ didn't believe in it choice?

the ubiquitous Lambert (I hope) and then the Beer Money fund (or what it was called) and then to?

.. because you didn't close your ital tag.

I understand your preference for hamsters over zuchinni.

Do hamsters have butt cracks? That has emerged as a key requirement.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Just trying to get a handle on:
splitting the proceeds with other pb 2.0 blogs (us with them, them with us) which had been proposed before (Spanish frigate model would work with number of correct posts made, not hits, as L was saying?)

...and paying writers.
(and rights to writers's works which we get into with cross-posts. Also changes with printing out because that equals print publishing versus e-books, right?)

Plus the costume costs--if we have to capture frigates, we are going to need eye-patches too.

This discussion has been so stimulating that I'm stunned with exhaustion.

I think we're really close to lift-off, or at least starting the countdown, so thanks to VL for provoking another great discussion, and thanks for everyone for participating.

Everyone, feel free to continue, as I stumble to my tiny room under the stairs...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Lots to think about. Thanks you all.

Always great to see you on-line, thanks for hosting, and
thanks to all you excellent posters.

[apologies for the linklessness]

Overarching the whole experience was a cloud of truthiness, believing whatever it felt good to believe, facts-be-damned.

iirc, from something i read somewhere sometime...

something like 1/4 or 1/3 of the population is a bunch of joe fridays and mr spocks: won't listen to you, indeed won't even be able to hear you, unless you give them straight, cold, linear, just-the-facts and none of that useless emotion-stuff.

another 1/4 or 1/3 so won't be able to hear you unless you do speak entirely in warm fuzzies, circularity, sounds, pictures, and intuitiveness. these aren't bad or stupid or lazy or lying or lesser human beings, nor are they necessarily non-liberals, they just think in different paths. discarding out of hand the technique of truthiness means you probably won't reach this audience.

[the remainder of us can apparently be swayed by any argumentation technique at all; a gullible bunch we must be indeed]

what i'd rather see is not an outright condemnation of truthiness, but vocal and vigorous debunking when it's used to propagate lies [ot to cover up the lack of truth].

I missed the conversation--a great one, btw--but after reading all the comments so late I can probably analyze the train of consciousness from a more detached perspective. One thing that wasn't apparent was a discussion of what, precisely, the goals of PB2.0 are.

Some things that popped out:

1.) We need to prevent a repeat of PB1.0
2.) We need to find a revenue source and distribution
3.) We need some kind of posting rules
4.) We should think about very low level campaigns (local level).
5.) Readership

We have addressed 1-3 extensively. We brought up the possibility of 4, but from what I saw, I didn't see how it was going to happen. Fundamentally, though, I'm unclear what the desired outcome is. I know what I would like to see and will post on that in the future, but what do other people want? Once PB2.0 is established and respected, what do we want people to say about PB2.0?

Another fundamental question: who do we want as our audience?

completely concur.

Jimmy butt-crack corn? Now we have a theme song too?

Do you have other lyrics?

The manufactured lies--Gore's sliming is the textbook example--are a product they sell. Why think? Just used our handy knee-jerk kit. (Another fabulous Correntewire product for purchase.)

I've watched this PB 2.0 thing evolve here, but honestly I have yet to see an idea here that hasn't already been implemented.

I mean, moderation? Kos has moderation...

And any verifiablity scheme will quickly get drowned in the anonymous and cheap nature of the internets.

To do this effectively, you have to understand
1. Why people visit blogs.
2. What ends bad ideas serve.

Worrying about the accuracy of statement X or Y is really quite secondary, and truthiness a problematic meme propagated by Stephen Colbert. A lie is only an instrument.

I get the feeling that people are holding PB 1.0 responsible for the depredations of the OFB. I rather think this is putting the cart before the horse. PB 1.0 became prominent because it was able to attract a lot of people. And it held on to a lot of people by producing results that a lot of people liked.

You didn't, and I wasn't very impressed either. That doesn't mean that the OFB was entirely manufactured by PB 1.0.

...contrary to the belief here, PB 1.0 was *effective*. It didn't *fail*. Anglachel puts her finger on it when she describes there having been a vendetta against the Clintons. The avowed goal of many of the big bloggers from the beginning was to break into the circles of power, because, to put it bluntly, there's no point in NOT being in the circles of power.

That way Naderism lies.

It turns out that they felt that the circles of power in the DNC were dominated by Clinton supporters. Consequently, starting in 2004 largely, they used their considerable resources garnered via the internet to do exactly what they said they'd do.

PB 1.0 was effective.

But not at delivering actual conservatism, not by a longshot.

PB1.0 failed at being a progressive beacon.

It is a sad state of affairs when winning, regardless of means or consequences, is the only thing. Once, so-called progressives understood this.

...the underlying assumption in this discussion seems to be that PB 1.0 *failed* at something, and that thing has to be *corrected*. Then people propose fixes that will immediately and easily be drowned out by PB 1.0 saturation effects, as there is no reasonable enforcement measure on the Internet.

I am suggesting that the right frame for the discussion is that PB 1.0 was *effective*, and then discussing what it was effective *at*. What was it *satisfying* that so many people apparently joined the OFB at its behest (assuming, of course, that the OFB wasn't a longstanding latent phenomenon that PB 1.0 merely exposed...)? How can PB 2.0 deliver that AND not be an instrument for bad?

Karl Rove was effective, too. But are you assuming that the goal was to deliver "actual conservatism" (whatever that is)? It wasn't. That's the *point*.

n/t

... to stretch that analogy a little more, the first question you have to ask is why the bus line sold out every seat. Sold *so* much that the other bus line couldn't attract sufficient business and then folded.

But the question people here are trying to answer appears to be "Why did that bus line not reach the right destination?" That's not that hard: the bus drivers were always planning on heading to the wrong destination, and said so, and did it.

It's also possible that the passengers knew that. Many of them, at least. Critical mass.

By "impress" up there, if that's become a bee in your bonnet, I meant I wasn't "impressed" with the primary process, I wasn't referring to you. ie, I was "unimpressed" with you, not against you.

Just making sure I'm not being misunderstood here.

“What do you mean, Iraq was a disaster? The big people made billions, and only the little people died.”

“What you you mean, the Bush adminitration was a failure? He replaced Constitutional government with authoritarian rule, didn’t he?”

So, I’m happy to concede that PB 1.0 “succeeded” in that sense. However, I, and I hope a critical mass of some others, are not willing to accept that definition of success.

No one (including me) is arguing that the "success" was a *good* thing. That's NOT the question I was asking. My complaint about this discussion is that it focuses on the failure of PB1.0 to deliver something that it wasn't (since Kos became big at the very least) designed to deliver. I've watched several iterations of this, every time mysteriously coinciding with a dKos purge, including attempts to create alternatives to dKos that fizzled out after a few months.

Then it asks how PB 2.0 can be effective in delivering that thing...that model 1.0 was never intended to deliver in the first place! I mean, that's the point of version-labelling them, right? PB 2.0 is supposed to be PB 1.0 done right? Isn't that the intended implication?

I suggest that the only thing that PB 2.0 and PB 1.0 have in common is the need to attract eyes in order to be effective. Then the question becomes, what does PB2.0 have to do to attract the eyes?

Actually, I am sure why. The goal is to cast PB1.0, which (ultimately) completely screwed the pooch at the mission its constituents were led to expect — honest media critique and the most progressive candidates possible — as a success and those who are fighting the good fight to make good on that promise as failures.

No, this is a mischaracterization. I'm saying that its constituents have largely gotten what they paid for, and what you haven't identified what its constituents were *actually* expecting, ie, you assumed that everyone who eventually became the OFB actually shared your definition of "honest media critique" and "most progressive candidates".

And I am saying that this was never the case.

By his (?) measures, indeed Bush and his Iraq war were stunning successes, and we should be humbled by the greatness of his endeavors.

1. Yes, since you asked, "his", not that I'm particularly worried about the gender of my online pseudonym.

2. If you want to provide an alternative to Bush and Iraq, you first have to explain why it worked. I'm carrying coals to Newcastle here, of course

3. But the difference is, you are not claiming that you shared their goals, and then discovered that they weren't going where you were going. But with PB1.0, you're making the crucial assumption that everyone else was thinking and hoping for what you were thinking and hoping for.

In a world that's saturated with neocon media, did you think that once Kos reached a million eyes, most of those eyes won't be looking at it through MSM-tinted glasses?

then let me suggest strongly that you do not rule out a formal organization with officers and a Board of Directors, especially if you'll be handling any money.

It's one thing for a couple of people to get together and run a website. It's another entirely to have some sort of network where you're handling money on behalf of other people in some fashion. You need fiduciary obligations to keep people accountable for their decisions. You need so insulation from liability that corporations or other formal entities can provide.

You know the saying money changes everything? Well, it does and it causes fights and ugliness unless there are rules and accountability under those rules. As for what those rules should be, I suggest transparency goes a long way.

Of course, this is coming from someone who joins DCBlogger in not getting this entire PB 2.0 discussion. I get the goal or at least what the problems are, but when I try to envision what kind of entity would actually exist along the lines you discuss, I fail. But it may just be that all this talk of decentralization and no one having any authority brings me back to every women's group meeting I've ever been to where the discussion goes on for fucking ever because nobody will make a decision.