Open source insurgencies, revolts, etc. operate on very simple premise:

They negate, block, stop, halt, reverse, etc. the status quo.

A dictator. A policy. An occupation. Etc.

They don't build. They don't construct. They don't transition. They don't rule. They don't make people in the establishment feel good/safe/etc. NOTE: it's important to note, as we saw with the people that defended Cairo's historic museum from looting/fire, they can protect.

The open source insurgency is based on a very simple goal (not an ideology or complex agenda). In Egypt's case: the removal a corrupt dictator .

. Successful efforts (Tunisia's success and the first Facebook protest in Cairo) move this goal from a hope to a plausible promise -- something that can be achieved.

A plausible promise is something that everyone can get behind regardless of ideology, religion, agendas, etc.

The open source insurgency runs until the plausible promise is achieved . Mubarak's offer to dissolve the government wasn't enough. He needs to go.

. Mubarak's offer to dissolve the government wasn't enough. He needs to go. Once Mubarak goes, the open source movement will evaporate -- after that, divergent motivations repeatedly fork the movement.

Further, as we have seen in Egypt, the ability of the open source insurgency to withstand/shrug off counter-attacks grows as it moves closer to its goal. Even though hundreds have been killed in Egypt by the police (on 29 January, 2010), it hasn't shaken the movement at all.

Online connectivity is an early enabler of open source insurgencies. Once they are formed, online connectivity is not a requirement for their continued operation over the short term. In Egypt's case, shutting down the Internet didn't work (it only made people more upset).