GM, Ford, etc. recognize the existential threat posed by Chinese competition, proactively pivoted, then had those efforts sabotaged, with prejudice.

The purpose of RRO assumes majoritarianism while ensuring the minority is heard.

As you know, there are light weight versions, for boards and committees. But nothing I'd advocate for product development.

> the most effective organizations

As a fellow recovering activist, you might be interested in Vincent Bevins' If We Burn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_We_Burn Connected some dots for me. Things I experienced but wasn't smart enough to sus and articulate.

I agree there is more than one way to look at it. There are good points to RRO but I think the legalism drives away a "silent majority" [1] of people who out of their background or temperament are particularly repelled by it.

Over the long term I've seen the governance of organizations like my food co-op be quite complex and not what I thought when things were going on. For instance we had a conflict that boiled for years which looked like a conflict over the vision of the organization but in retrospect it really was the bad personality of the manager because that manager left and went to run Borders [2] and had the same problems over there whereas the conflicting camps reconciled pretty quickly when that manager was out.

But there really are tensions over professionalism, vanguardism, and such that we'll be arguing about for a really long time. The asymmetry between the left and right wings is also interesting -- I think left wing organizations have an unhealthy tendency towards centralization because fundraising is more difficult and you get the "membership organization" model that inevitably fails because of the issues pointed out in [3] [4] vs many right wing millionaires that fund parallel right wing causes that compete in a healthy way and always stay on mission because they can be defunded when they go off mission.

In 2026 I have a new commitment to activism but Jacobin magazine would rip into my approach as being radically apolitical but I think that is what is needed in 2026.

[1] 20 years ago I didn't think I'd be talking like Nixon...

[2] Personally I am not inclined to blame individuals, plus that manager had allies, which is why it took me so long to see it

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

Thanks for recommending Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. It's a good compliment to The Logic of Collective Action.

Sad I'm just now learning of it.

--

I've used Jacobin (and such) to reveal my blindspots. Criticisms, from the left, have helped me clarify, understand, and articulate my own positions and beliefs.

As for being apolitical, well... My primary motivator is to "increase the peace" (for brevity's sake). And partisanship hasn't helped much.

FWIW, you might enjoy David Roberts' recent interview with Samuel Bagg.

https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-cure-for-misinformation-is-not

They explain and articulate some of what I've experienced trying to (re)build relationships with friends and family (with opposing views). Micro dose validation of some stuff I've intuited (this decade past) was a nice dopamine hit.

Like you, I'm focusing my "political" and "activism" energy on building community, doing things. And trying to disengage from the never-ending partisan food fights.

Thanks again. Cheers.

I've used the group coordination technology of democracy in the workplace. It was both awesome and burdensome.

Awesome, because social cognition and personal empowerment are force multipliers.

Burdensome, because change is hard, empowerment means accountability, some people would rather complain than contribute.

I'd never advocate leaderless, flatness, whatever pseudo anarchist mumbo-jumbo. Doesn't work. Tyranny of Structurelessness, If We Burn, and all that.

I threaded the needle by creating an org chart comprised of well defined roles. And (most) every team member served in (most) every role, over time. So the person serving in the QA/Test role dutifully executed the QA/Test playbook. And next release they might represent the Engr, TechSupp, etc role.

Otherwise known as cross training, but with better support and culture.

YMMV, obv. Different efforts require different structures. There's a cornucopia of group decision making tools, skills, techs. Use what works best for the task and context at hand.

--

I'm very intrigued by how Oxide Computers is running things. Just from their podcasts, radically open seems like it's working for them.

Surely there's a well trod progression, no? Something like military, space, drones, aircraft, IoT, consumer (phones, watches), vehicle, residential, grid?

> hype department

Yes but:

It's signal that battery tech will maintain its cost-learning-curve for some time to come.

It'll be noteworthy, to me, once these announcements start to trail off.

all matter in the universe carries a charge, so the list of potential battery materials candidates, is everything. also, everything that isnt something has energy passing through it, so even nothing, is usefull.

> "privacy" has become the most abused word in tech

Ideally, an argument about privacy would start with its notion of privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#Conceptions_of_privacy

What's your definition of privacy?

Thanks for explaining. This is a great win.

Noob me hoped "wall-to-wall" meant something like "everyone in the building".

Reasoning that once the whole of a company is unionized, it's a short hop to worker directed social enterprise (a co-op, more or less).

My search for thrift stores did not include Goodwill. Had to search for Goodwill explicitly.

Clever.

Yes and:

Recent Volts episode has great overview of China's electro-tech build out, world is at or near peak fossil fuel across all sectors and countries (with 1 notable exception), etc.

Clean electrification is inevitable - A conversation with Kingsmill Bond of Ember Energy. [2025/11/21]

https://www.volts.wtf/p/clean-electrification-is-inevitable