Steve, You wrote: "How would a "governance" that is "problematic" relate to the Tuckman model?" It has much to do with what you wrote here, IMHO: "One hunch: this kind of loose federation, with members joining at different times, dropping in and out, isn't really a "group" at all in the sense that Tuckman thinks of groups. If that is so, the group is always "forming" for some--you mention that you are new, so you're "forming"-- and "storming" and "norming" and "performing" go on together and endlessly, rather than in clearly marked stages." There is a lot of fuss, and a lot of studies, about "community", online as well as offline. The bottom line of what makes a community is participation in shared governance forms (any form). When groups form and especially *norm*, they create rules as well as procedures to create new rules and change old ones, ie governance. That's why I said that whenever there is a governance problem Tuckman can't be applied, in my opinion. If governance is problematic, there can be no norming. "In which case Tuckman doesn't apply." In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Rosanna