However, the consensus model of organization has something that is truly problematic to me. If leaders are allowed just to slide into place and people pitch in without accountability, there are many power dynamics left unexamined – like who gets credit, who picks “up the slack,” and who dominates by virture of their relative privileges.

You’re right to note that in any gathering of people (more than 2, anyway) there will be a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. In the open source community, technology is often deployed to increase inclusiveness without diluting vision/goal/direction.

I am completely in favor of greater inclusiveness in projects, but traditional methods and thinking often limit true, equal participation. What are needed are new methods and approaches to achieve this, without, as you note, removing individual responsibility and authority.

One promising method is Ortegrity.

Ortegrity shares many elements in common with sociocracy, which is an adaptation of Quaker egalitarian principles for secular organizations based on consent, not consensus.

Use of alternative organizational structures takes communication, trust, discipline and transparency. I would argue that requires vision; both to see the need as well as lead the initiative.

Dr. Timothy Wilken has a clearer explanation of synocracy and its complimentary mechanisms, as well as a thorough discussion of its hierarchical roles.

“Make a relentless point of telling everyone about the lack of structure, the absence of centralized leadership, and accountability for the conference.”

I have heard from a number of different projects that no one is “really in charge” or “the head of anything” in the name of egalitarian ethics, feminist principles, and so on. Why is someone being in charge and being accountable for the bottom line a bad thing? Some folks are good at niche details, and some are good at more direct leadership positions. When I see participants making such statements, I notice that many things fall through the cracks because “no one is in charge,” and ethical considerations (e.g., securing accommodations for persons with disabilities) actually remain unaddressed. Does a hierarchical arrangement in organization have to be “bad” per se?