This was a recurring thought while reading.
While I can see how this can work in, let us say, “organizations”, I’m having difficulty seeing how it works at the supra-organizational level. They mentioned the Pirate Party here in Germany, for example, and although I applauded what they were trying to do, they had the very real problem of reaching “consensus”, let us call it, in anything like real time. Even in the simplest (and I would say, most harmless) of interviews, the “representatives” spent as much time checking their screens for continual revisions of “votes” on positions as they did actually answering simple questions. I, for one, think the pace of decision-making needs to slow down in many instances, but that isn’t one of them. One of the reasons that the party ultimately failed is that it could not deliver on any of the promises it made, regardless of how secure and transparent they were. Granted, they were operating peripherally to the current “system”, but they never became an integrated part of it, nor was there any movement of the “system” in the direction of their modus operandi.
In other words, one critical issue for me is how do they think/can such as system establish itself at a political level that makes a, let us say, societal (for lack of a better word) difference?