That is all very nice (I have witnessed a part of the process described here) but there is a bit of misunderstanding here, and from the very beginning.
1. St. Benedict rule hardly can be called an inter-community communication protocol. Out of 73 chapters, only four (53,54,60,61) tell us about the interaction between the monastery and other entities.
2. Most of the document is focused internal (quite rigid) structure and discipline, clearly hierarchical, centralised and authoritarian. It also implies strict obedience of a monastery to the monastic hierarchy in Rome (later: Vatican).
3. Edgeryders totally omitted another Christian monastic tradition – the Irish one. Irish early monasticism was much more socially adequate, decentralised and open minded. No patriarchal domination, relatively weak hierarchy and much less fuss about the games of power.
4. Within the Christian social tradition the era of Christianity as a state religion is not really considered a Golden Age. It gave birth to all skeletons in the Church wardrobe, so to speak. Whatever bad can be told about Christianity (as institution) is actually rooted in that period.
Personally, I can only regret that Edgeryders clearly wish to follow the path of the Roman Catholic Church; centralised, uniform, rigid structure, entangled in the mainstream politics power games is as far from the disruptive spirit of hacking – and anarchy – as it can be. Still, I hope the spirit will prevail. Dum spiro, spero.
Just leaving it here…