 |
 |
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? Janet