Commenting on this modification is closed; the modification is accepted.
Enable comment auto-refresher
This is one of those unusual cases when a modification is de facto accepted even before its official publication. It is safe to say that the definitions of group, accidental group, and community suggested by Overgaard have been unofficially accepted for more than a year now. They have been the starting point of pretty much all our discussions concerning communities and relations between them (authority delegation etc.). It would only be proper if we were to make the acceptance of these definitions official.
I think before accepting this modification, I think a proper discussion is warranted here on the definition of a group. Is it right to smuggle in, with this taxonomy, that a group necessarily consists of two or more people? Especially considering that this had been such a contentious issue in the 2017 seminar, I'm not sure that it's right to make this assumption — especially given that Overgaard's paper runs on exactly that for this definition, a general assumption.
This being said, regarding Hakob's comment above, given that these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions, perhaps the reservations I'm talking about as best as a future modification to this modification's proposed theory.
You are not allowed to post comments.