On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Beryl Graham
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  So, is there a balance to be struck between 'the tyranny of structureless'
> and the tyranny of the matchmaker?

Fit for purpose I think in most cases?
As others have suggested the kind of contract you're making with other
parties is most effective when it is explicit up front. This helps
people to make autonomous choices about what they have to contribute
which might be useful. Conversations with lurkers might help people
negotiate what is expected. So long as everyone is working to the same
goal set thats all good?

What are the most sustainable models which people have used for open practice?
What are the models which have given people problems?
Are there different kinds of funding models or proposal strategies for
making open projects in an arts context than there are for making
projects where the art is a controlled product?