Talk:Usership

July 4 2010, in an email ( "D:" are inline replies )

A:

I spent over 50 hours on the P2P wiki this week. In some sense it was just so I could tell you that usership is now in a category right next to the multi unit page, acting as a supportin document. this keeps the multi unit project clean.

the top level documents are system-of-system types, and so rely on extensive supporting documentation.

usership is a system document, and right now is sitting in the new category i made at

http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peer_Economy_Concepts

Which you can see listed as asubcategory here

http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_Collaboration_Stack

im a bit of a wiki master now, hey?

D:

Sounds good. An Ontology guide :)

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within ahierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences )

A:

so, you can see some help files on how to do things like this yourself in the

http://p2pfoundation.net/Help:Editing_Editing_Help_page

I can help you with usership once I figure out what it is. Patrick was pretty well into his user_owned project, and I'm still catching up.

D:

Yes. I guess I make my own definition.

I noticed you added it to

http://p2pfoundation.net/Usership

To maintain the modularity,

I moved it to

http://p2pfoundation.net/A_Cooperative_Housing_Usership_Design

and kept links to the new page on

http://p2pfoundation.net/Usership#A_Multi-Unit_Housing_Usership_Design

I can also take it off the p2p wiki and just have it on sharewiki.

A:

One of my assumptions in all of this work I'm doing is that common resources or common property is a necessary assumption with p2p.

I don't go into a lot of details yet about how I think it should be aquired, or even what legal structrue should own it or what to do with debt.

D:

Or when a networked structure creates a "de-facto" commons, even temporary, through participation. De-facto "process" commons ?

A:

much of that advice might be prescriptive for a problem that doesn't exist.

my approach is to describe the system that allows peers to manage all aspects of common resources, nd that includes aquiring them or putting them in this or that structure.

D:

Or "process" commons ? ( which may not have a specific definition concerning ownership )

A:

as you can see if you click through to the network models i am doing my best to keep these descriptions slim. i want to keep definitions low down and reused a lot. patrick and i expect to be able to show discussion on the subjects and to have a 'p2p definition' for things like profit:

http://p2pfoundation.net/Profit

As you can see this is now in the Peer Economy Concepts Category. Some of the pages on common resources are messy! Woo! going to be quite a bit of work. Writing new stuff and recategorizing old stuff is NOTHIGN compared to the work of merging an article. Damn.

Anyways, this is what I was talking about with regards to defining things. Modular definitions allow reusability and the rapid prototyping of additional models.

D:

yep. Modularity is fine.

A:

Let me know where you want to go with usership and ill give a hand.