We have a lot of work to do on the left to develop our political understanding of the dangers of relying on corporate Internet services for our political organizing work. However, the corporate part of the equation is only half the problem. The other half is centralization - a problem that affects even the most politically radical hosting providers.

A group of people recently began working together on the monkeysphere - a project to broaden the use of OpenPGP in our Internet work. Although progress on the project goals has been slow going, we've done a lot of thinking about how to collaborate in a way that avoids centralization.

(These ideas for organizing are based on a transparent organizing model - in other words, there is no space for private communication.)

Consider your typical project (a tech project or even a non-tech focused political project): First you get a web site (centralized), then you get an email list (centralized on a single list server, which sends email to people via their centralized mail provider). If you are particularly tech savvy you might also throw in a (centralized) wiki for collaboration or a project management site (like trac or basecamp). If you are working on a software project, you may want to use a centralized revision control system (like subversion). In other words, just about every aspect of the collaboration relies on a technologically centralized system.

What's right with this model? For one, joining the project is technically easy - you look at a web site (piece of cake) or join a list (easy for most people comfortable with the Internet).

What's wrong with this model? The people who control the central resources control the project. Often, joining a list requires moderator approval. Accessing a password-protected web site requires that someone create your account. Usually, the people who are responsible for these duties are responsible because they happened to be the ones who set the technology up - not because a political decision in the group was made to empower them with this decision-making responsibility.

In addition - what happens when the web server breaks or is seized? Or when the email list goes down? Or when any of the central resources get hit so hard with traffic (legitimate or not) that they can't cope?

And finally - what if the politics of the group is decidedly anarchistic or otherwise politically committed to decentralization?

With the monkeysphere project we decided to experiment with collaborating using tools that were de-centralized. We started by using a tool called git. Git is a de-centralized revision control system, which is a fancy way of saying: it's a tool that keeps track of text files - saving all revisions and changes made by all participants (like a wiki). One way git is special is that it does not rely on a centralized server for people to collaborate. Instead, each participant publishes their own copy of their files, and every other participant can choose to merge their repository with everyone else's repository. All changes are kept track of and can be identified by author, undone, or accepted.

In the monkeysphere project, git is about as far as we've gone with this theory. Below, I've hashed out some ways to take it even further.

Web site: it is useful to have a single web site for people to go to in order to learn about your project. If you are using git, then you can publish your web site files via git. That way, every member of the project has a copy of the site in their git repository and has the capacity to publish it as a web site. Most groups would want to choose a single individual to take responsibility for this duty - however, if the group decides the chosen individual is not doing it reliably, or the chosen individual's public web server goes down or is seized, it is technically simple for any other individual in the group to re-publish it somewhere else.

What about communication? If every member has a published blog capable of tags - we could communicate with each other by publishing blog posts with the agreed upon tag. Each project member would be responsible for pulling in everyone else's RSS feed of their blog on a regular basis. Sending an "email" to the group would simply be a matter of posting a new item to your blog with the appropriate tag. New members join the communication by subscribing to the other members RSS feeds. A list of participants RSS feeds could be stored in the git repository.

At the moment - these ideas are barely within the reach of a fairly sophisticated group of technologists. To expect the left to adopt these strategies now is unrealistic. However, this model of organizing suggests some new core competencies that we may want to consider developing - including the use of revision control systems, RSS and blogging so we can plan for a future when de-centralized organizing can happen on the Internet.