It'd be really interesting to see how they might work, and I like the idea of transparent elections for decisions, though it seems exhausting to have every single decision vetted. Sometimes you just gotta experiment on the fly and hope it'll work, sometimes decisions come from community discussion, sometimes they're just nothing really to lose sleep over.
As a community leader, I don't actually want to be a dictator, despite what others might think of me. But it's super hard to have the purse strings and have people trust you with them. Who is really to say I was going to walk away with the community funds and not distribute them to the people who've been working with the community? Transparency and trust are difficult here. Multi signatory accounts with trusted mods would be great - however, we'd be subject to same criticism - oh, that 'group' of people are siphoning money (even if the money was for their own time and effort, others might not see it that way). It's a nutty and complex issue.
As a leader (and to get this straight, I hate the term and I hate being one - I dont feel comfortable with it at all) I don't appreciate it when people demand things be done differently, in a quite rude, aggressive and confrontational manner (for example) - but they're always going to see my actions and decisions as going against the decentralised vibe of the place. In an ideal world, everyone would be polite and moderate, and we'd reach decisions together. Damn if I don't wish that all the time. I love and celebrate different ideas and I love suggestions and input and diverse voices, but sometimes you're going to get a 'team member' get nasty and whilst the group might all separately agree to cut loose that team member, the person is always going to see it as a dictatorship, no matter what. The leaders always cop the flak and are always held accountable even though they are trying to do the best for everyone and taking everyone's views into account. I think it's a rare community indeed that doesn't truly have the best interests of their community at heart and I don't think we've really had an instance yet of a leader truly doing 'the wrong thing'. And as Mini says, there's always another side to the story. I guess we're always taking that risk, trusting in community leaders to have our best interests at heart.
The other thing is - and I really agree with @eco-alex here - the community leaders are using the ones who put the vast majority of time and effort into all the front and back end work that has to be done to build and maintain a community, even if people don't see the work that goes into it. It's virtually impossible to find people that will put in similiar hours and passion and dedication - and honestly, the burn out is real. I'm so grateful for the team that helps me (one of which has the keys too, by the way - so I can't power down without him stopping it haha - and I trust him implicitly not to cut and run) and the amazing people who are the passion behind this community - honestly, melts my heart - but bottom line is the leader has to make the hard calls in the end and that's quite the burden.
I like @minismallholding's comment that
My policy, if I don't like they way things are done, is ask politely and/or walk away. No point in trying to control what you can't.
and @mattclarke's comment about walking with your feet, or starting up another community.
There's always going to be things you don't like about particular groups or how they're run, and that's fine - that's the beauty of choice.
Sorry I'm starting to ramble and maybe even talk in circles - I don't see an easy solution to people's disatisfaction with how communities might be run at all. All I know is that as a leader I operate from a place of good intention, and sometimes I get it right, and sometimes I don't. I rely on the community to advise and direct and assist me, but I can't tolerate unkindness and behaviour that goes against our core ethos, and when the majority suggests it's a good idea to ask someone to leave due to their behaviour or comments against people in the group, then that's the way it's gotta be. Communities can be really, really unpleasant when someone's being vindicative or aggressive, that's for sure. And just as we wouldn't tolerate it in real life, we simply can't tolerate it in communities. And I know a lot of leaders don't take these decisions lightly.
I hear you and there is a bit here, but I'll just touch a couple of points. You mention "Leader" a lot and my personal view is that the world needs to move away from having all powerful leaders and self-govern more.
I like the (old) idea of a "Representative" or even a "Custodian" who can be empowered by the community to do certain tasks or take certain responsibilities. Thats kind of how I see my own role in my own community. It doesn't mean I can't show some leadership, but I don't see myself as a "Leader" per se (capital L)
While I also support more direct democracy in the real world, it becomes unworkable to vote on every minute detail of every thing. People need to be empowered to make a few decisions and take responsibility for outcomes and if the community is not happy with those outcomes - then then just vote them out (dis-empower them)
We need to remember we are on a decentralised blockchain. If we're going to have any credibility we need to practise what we preach and show how the principles of decentralised governance and democratised technology can have real world applications that actually work.
Oh I hate the term leader - and I am always struggling for another word!!! I even feel uncomfortable seeing myself as one, and certainly didn't set out to be one in the traditional sense of the word. Custodian is nice - and I like what @angryman calls it too - founder.
Here's to decentralised solutions that work!