They just want the TU's to function as well as possible, after a model that has proven to be more successful than the anarchy model that currently runs on [community].
this is the third or fourth time i've seen "anarchy" abused so casually in this discussion. "anarchy" != disorder, or even lack of order/organization. for dog's sake, do a little homework before you use it pejoratively again. try this http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm site or this http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html one. there are, though, lesser and greater, more- and less- functional forms of non-hierarchical organization. one of the keys to success is effective, equal discussion and decision-making processes. one of the most effective is formal consensus. "consensus" is another concept i see abused without much thought here. what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits the needs of all stake-holders. i see a few personalities trying to impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough* loui *cough*) please y'all, consider the possibility that *your* brilliant idea may not be the *only* brilliant idea out there. check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making and http://www.consensus.net/ . i may not be the most active participant here, but i deeply value the open and community-run nature of the aur-end of arch. i'd be pretty disappointed if the authority to determine who participates and how was handed to a smaller, less-accountable elite. so, to sum up, work together, quit trying to "win," and circle that a, motherf**kers! -kludge