The Progressive Blog Alliance is growing exponentially; each new link opens membership to an entirely new corner of the web. At its current pace, we can expect over 100 members within the next month -- and that estimate is conservative. Thus, I'd like to take the time to discuss some thoughts I have on organizing this beast.

Currently, the Alliance is organized under, what for lack of a better word, I'd describe as my benevolent dictatorship. My sovereignty resides in one simple reality: I control who is admitted to the alliance, and am able to remove them with the click of a mouse. It is the only hard power that exists within the alliance. While my dictatorship is by no means a tyranny, it nevertheless carries all of the risks associated with concentrating power in the hands of too few.

As the alliance grows, so too will the negative aspects of my dictatorship. It forces the alliance to be a single network -- not a network of networks -- which is what I hope to create. As our roll begins to bulge, our members will feel more and more disconnected. Furthermore, I will have to be more picky about allowing members to join, for space will be at a premium. In short, I will have to destroy everything I love about this alliance in order to make it work. So what alternatives do we have?

Due to cultural bias, I'm guessing a great deal of readers just thought "lets make a democracy". However, I think a democracy would prove to be worse than even my most malignant dictatorship. For one, Democracy requires us to share a background of values, loyalties, and goals -- none of which are present. Furthermore, Democracy also requires everyone to participate and have our collective best interest in mind.

Most of all, a democracy would create another centralized authority. Even if the centralized authority was our collective voice, it would never the less crumble. In my opinion, no centralized authority is capable of creating a single set of rules that will enjoy the widespread support necessary for legitimacy.

Thus I charge we should create a structured anarchy -- indeed, is the internet itself not just that? By Anarchy, I mean no one is fully in charge, but I don't mean no one has power to control members. There will be members who will be benevolent dictators, but we will find ways to check their power. In the form of governance that I hope supersedes me, reputation is everything. Reputation is decidedly not equally distributed, and social orders will likely emerge that will create outcasts.

So, I'm recommending that when our roll hits 60 members, we should split the alliance into 3 separate alliances whose members are held accountable by one dictator, and every dictator is held accountable by fellow dictators, and their members. I think we should continue to require that all rolls are still shown for now, but eventually, we may be able to create a more complex and responsive system of organization, than the top down look of our current one. Of course, I might be batshit crazy, and no one has any idea what I'm talking about here. However, I'd really like to get some feedback beyond "sounds good". How do we select dictators for new chapters? How do we hold dictators accountable? What responsibilities would separate chapters have to each other?

We may be on the verge of something new, and this may just end up being another failed social experiment. But I hope a few of you see where I'm going with this.

Update: Check out Ran Domino's Post on this Subject