Which is why I responded to Dburt the way I did. He has an end goal in mind that does imply some type of coup or reverse merger. I just have a process of getting things done. Group A does not have to replace NAACP, or take its place (whatever that place may be). It can only last as long as it takes to conduct a specific task.

I read the definition of open source culture and this fits exactly. We aren’t taking anything over, although as this philosophy grants more power to individuals (and to collectives) i think this will happen “naturally.”

Not exactly. The value of open source development applicable to politics is the definition (or perhaps, re-definition) of a creed or polity, in this case ‘black politics’ however defined by group A. But group A’s blueprint as intentionally distributed is raw; incomplete. The remaining template would be left for others — including black Baltimore ‘leaders’ — to adopt and modify to completion as they so desire. ‘Open’ in open source describes not only access (the pre-condition to transparency) but action; the licensee’s not bound to honor directions or goals specified by the licensor.

A reverse merger, coup, and leveraged acquisition are strategies better suited for coercing institutional/agency accountability in the manner you seek.

If I had a problem with the Chicago Police, I could not go “DIRECTLY” to Rev. Jackson. To gain access to Obama, I would not be able to go “DIRECTLY” to him either. Open and Free Access to the top brass, if you will, is what would make things transparent.

PUSH does do some good things in Chicago, but I think some of the external things that Rev. Jackson jumps into are not worth it, in my opinion. I can’t speak on Sharpton’s Action Network. All I know about that is what I hear on his radio show.

As for Obama running for president, he’d not be as accessible as he is now, which is feeble in itself. Personally, I don’t he’d win but that’s another post.

I do think there are a number of challenges to overcome in this endeavor, as politics is about struggle.

Your concern, as I understand it, is replacing one centralized mode of blackness that privileges a group of individuals with another. I don’t see that happening here.

So, to wrest the Black agency (?) from the likes of (insert your high profile Black activist’s name here) using open source methodology, someone, somewhere would first create a basic construct of Black polity that would be then adopted by vendors looking to access or utilize Black politics for their own purposes. Just as I might try to secure license to Microsoft’s Windows Mobile code if I wanted to develop and/or sell software for mobile devices.

By ‘identifiable entity’ I didn’t mean ‘recognizable’ vis-a-vis celebrity; just a certain person or group. Neither did I intend to suggest only 1 version of ‘Black’ could function. In fact, several variations on ‘Black’ can be created and exist simutaneously. My concern here is with the propriety of a ‘Black test’ of someone’s design that would be applied to anyone.