Talk:Core Peer-2-Peer Collaboration Principles
--Poor Richard 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC) This is expansive and open-ended (good):"P2P should evolve to meet whatever needs peers have in building a commons or similar works. Perhaps the term or whole concept of P2P will be subsumed by other ideas..."
This seems arbitrarily constrained: "...without direct expectation of reciprocity from any particular individual. It is therefore not a hierarchical allocation method, not an exchange based market form, and not a reciprocity based gift economy."
Why rule all those things out of peer collaborations?
"Peers typically recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank or hierarchies."
Are you sure? That's not my take on the internet set. Everybody's keeping scores and making moves, even in the Linux and Wikipedia communities.
"3. Samuel Rose offers the following on anonymity:...
"The problem it was trying to solve was (and is) that the wiki can be edited by anyone, without logging in. The wiki system cannot really afford very many unidentified people. The lower the participatory barrier, the more valuable it is to be able to identify the people within it. This identity is one of the only ways to really sustain the "commons" of the system over time."
Anti-pseudonym prejudice is prejudice.
"See also...JOHO the Blog relevant post "
The last source contradicts the anti-anonymity bias. --Poor Richard 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
you can keep score if you want, but you have no guarantee that any contribution to a commons will lead a particular individual to give you something back (gift economy), to pay you (market), or to allocate you resources by fiat (hierarchy) ... it may happen but is not the core of the p2p commons dynamic ... of course, if you mean peer as in any interaction between two people, that is fine, but this is not the context of the work in the P2P Foundation, which is about p2p as 'communal shareholding' as identified in the relational grammar of Fiske.
--Poor Richard 22:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not as worried about Fiske orthodoxy as operational utility. Open source meritocracies are hierarchical and they are all about keeping score, even if all you "win" is a design argument or the authority to commit code to a repository. I think meritocracies can be viewed as markets in which reputation, trust, or status is the currency. The meritocracies of open source projects will likely follow through to peer production outside the digital commons. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if I'm taking a position that is harmful to the p2p cause.
This is the way I am beginning to model p2p in the PeerPoint project, which is trying to plant itself in the mainstream market of ideas:
(I'm still playing around with the arrangement, but I think most of the proper elements are there)
Important concepts common to p2p culture, p2p production, and p2p technology
All of the following concepts are highly recursive and interwoven so its difficult to organize them. The following outline could be arranged in many alternate ways.
Per Wikipedia: Composability is a system design principle that deals with the inter-relationships of components. A highly composable system provides recombinant components that can be selected and assembled in various combinations to satisfy specific user requirements. In information systems, the essential features that make a component composable are that it be:
- self-contained (modular): it can be deployed independently - note that it may cooperate with other components, but dependent components are replaceable
- stateless: it treats each request as an independent transaction, unrelated to any previous request. Stateless is just one technique; managed state and transactional systems can also be composable, but with greater difficulty.
- Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over
- Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level
- Per Wikipedia: The concept of subsidiarity is applicable in the fields of government, political science, cybernetics, management, military (Mission Command) and, metaphorically, in the distribution of software module responsibilities in object-oriented programming. Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism, where it asserts the rights of the parts over the whole.
3. Openness (need p2p definitions)
- Informed Consent
- Open participation
4. Individual sovereignty (need definitions--what it is & isn’t in p2p context)
- Equality of agency
5. Cooperation (need definitions--what it is & isn’t in p2p context)
- Enlightened self-interest
6. Commons (need p2p definitions) -
- --Poor Richard 23:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)