[p2p-research] Fwd: Who's Developing P2P-L2G Related Software?
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 13 12:40:52 CEST 2009
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Who's Developing P2P-L2G Related Software?
To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Cravens <knuggy at gmail.com>, phoebe moore <pvm.doc at gmail.com>,
"Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com>, "Paul B. Hartzog" <
paulbhartzog at gmail.com>, Smári McCarthy <smari at anarchism.is>, Ted Hall <
tedhall.shopbot at gmail.com>
Paul Hartzog has often suggested that there is an important, *key* model in
brick link is a website for lego enthusiasts to buy and sell individual
pieces and sets of lego.
The interesting thing about brick link is that it will source and package
pieces for large builds for you. So, if you want to build a replica of the
NASA Space Shuttle, *if* brinklink has the information, it will pull from
many distributed sources all of the pieces that you need, and even do all of
the transactions for you.
This is similar to the model that Paul and myself are working on for Local
Food Systems food sourcing using FLOWS from existing databases of food
producers, and processors in local areas, BTW.
The same thing can happen with distributed manufacturing. People can list
capabilities to produce, or materials they can produce, and a person could
place an order for those materials in a distributed way.
The RepRap parts lister already comes close to doing this:
"generate parts" to see what I am talking about
I am working on a project that is stalled, but that I am committed to
completing, called "Exploded View" which allows for both the documentation
of disassembly of mass produced goods, and the discovery of what is valuable
in what is otherwise considered "junk". Would also allow people to list the
pieces. Hopefully in the last quarter of 2009 I will have more on that.
This would open up sources of rare materials, and allow people to turn
discarded materials into a permanent technology cycle
One of the areas that is little discussed is "Living technology": meaning
biomimicry, using living systems to accomplish needs like cleaning air, or
heating air in a building, cleaning waste water via living plants, or even
arranging production in a way that creates a McDonough-style "waste equals
food" practice. Doing this would actually *boost* the economic viability of
a business centered around flex fab and open source technology. It would
also open up economic opportunities for other people, who might be able to
do something with waste streams. This is the part of the premise of the
Wealth Generating Ecology model that Paul, Rick Adler and myself are
creating with the book we are co-authroing at http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
Finally, one of the ideas that we are exploring is a practice to harvest
from streams of bookmarking, microblogging, and other online activity, where
and when new "niches" emerge. If "FLOWS" model based practices are followed
(princple of plurality, inputs are outputs, outputs are inputs, etc), and
people pool efforts to expose new niches, then it is plausible that people
are no longer focused on competing with each other. We are experimenting
with this at http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing/ and will start
evaluating was to process with algorithms that can recognize patterns, etc I
also am convinced that prediction markets can help with collaboration around
localized economies, too, if they are run carefully.
Just some ideas.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Phoebe,
> May I suggest that you have an overview page on your project, and we can
> then perhaps start with a more public call for suggestions on both the p2p
> research list and the open manufacturing list?
> I've created a second file to collate material on manufacturing platforms
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Nathan Cravens <knuggy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Michel, Phoebe, Hackers
>> This is an information and developer gathering mission.
>> I intend to see to it everyone benefits.
>> I hope you might as well.
>> Peer-to-Peer Local-to-Global Platform
>> There's a particular platform I'm developing with the OpenKollab<http://wiki.openkollab.com/Home> group that
>> differs from well known media ecologies like facebook or twitter. The
>> peer-to-peer local-to-global (P2P-L2G) platform makes a distinction from the
>> traditional notion of social networking software by expressing the virtual
>> as it represents physical environments with the option when wanted to
>> manipulate distant physical environments from a computer in a collaberative
>> Who's doing this already?
>> Closed but exists, leaning toward this area:
>> What others?
>> In Development:
>> Ted Hall with 100K Garages
>> Paul Fernhout with OSCOMAK
>> Bryan Bishop with SKDB
>> Smári McCarthy with Tangible Bit
>> Then there's Sam with FLOWS -- not a L2G platform itself, but a core
>> architecture that removes code redundancies and in practice assures all
>> software can talk to other software and related components--like hardware.
>> What else?
>> What else?
>> At OpenKollab we're at the networking and formulation stage, amplifying
>> early for collective attenuation. Real time engagement in the form of irc
>> chat/Skype and a flexible platform (wagn) is the secret sauce at present.
>> We're open to other platforms. We're also using a discussion list cc'd.
>> "Add Resources <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Resources> that relate to
>> collaboration. Add <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/%3Ca_href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openkollab.com%2Fwagn%2FPeople%22%3EPeople%3C%2Fa%3E>
>> People <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/People> you know, like yourself,
>> developing collaborative tools. We are discussing and building on a set of Principles
>> and Practices <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/CollabPrinciples> to guide
>> community action, both locally and globally, to determine what Process
>> Model <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Process_Model> we follow and what
>> Platform <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Platform> we use. "
>> My present area of focus and the focus of this topic:
>> "You are all already following a "purpose->process->platform" model to a
>> large degree, which is good (first define your purpose, then work to create
>> useful processes that help you accomplish the stated purpose, then choose
>> your platforms based on the processes you have devised)." -Sam Rose
>> Resource Management Software. Corporate and Closed?
>> The only other platforms I recall are in the corporate and closed realm,
>> usually referred to as resource management software. Like...
>> I hope Paul Fernhout might present a list here.
>> I cannot see the economic incentive for enterprise software firms to
>> develop superior free and open source versions. Yet, if we know how these
>> interface usefulnesses work, this can funnel into the P2P-L2G process and
>> platform template, and with any group or individual purposes templates
>> creates return to the repository for f/os use or whatever license you or
>> your group decide. I hear firms like SAP are firing a few people; so we
>> might want to get to know the damaged goods and give them a home. ;) I do
>> not see proprietary RM stakeholder support until such time P2P-L2G reduces
>> significant marketshare--and by that point--there will be no need for
>> Business would like very much to do away with software licensing fees and
>> use a free/open source equivalent, especially if it performed better and
>> helped attract customers to make a preference specific, custom designed
>> product. Drink the Kool-Aid fellas!
>> Please add to the list above
>> Distiguishing between open and closed models.
>> Cited here:
>> Please point me directly to your resources
>> So I may direct to it.
>> Here's our window to develop a single platform that can advance all of our
>> projects further in a market neutral fashion beyond our organizational,
>> institutional, or siloed social networks.
>> I hope all of you cc'd in particular will respond with input about your
>> project, share what other projects you know of, and how they might relate to
>> OpenKollab or similar efforts.
>> I cannot seem to stress enough that we must all work together on something
>> that can better fulfill the goals of our projects or works. This is not only
>> business in the productive sense, but personal. This is why it will not only
>> work, but out-perform the rest.
>> If something is not clear, please contact me directly. If I don't have the
>> answers, we'll find someone who does.
>> Please direct what you'd like to make public on this topic to the Open
>> Manufacturing list so we can better stay on the same page.
>> <openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com>,
>> Hack on...
>> knuggy at gmail.com
>> If not already, please read the contents attached for further context:
>> (thanks in advance for allowing this anti-spam to distribute throughout
>> your networks)
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Dear Nathan, Sam:
>>> our p2p friend phoebe moore, co-creator of the p2p research group, will
>>> be organizing a conference on 'media ecologies' and asked me for some
>>> one of them would be 'media platforms for peer production and open
>>> collaboration' which could bring a few people together now working on
>>> similar collaborative platform ideas ...
>>> In this case, this is tentative and depending on funding and where people
>>> have to come from etc.., a new names of people would be useful .. the idea
>>> is to give them the opportunity to discuss some ways of combining efforts
>>> the presentations for the conference should include: 1) what is lacking
>>> now; 2) what to think of commercial platforms a la facebook: 3) what are
>>> possible ways forward ...
>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Nathan Cravens <knuggy at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Hi Sam,
>>>> I'm well rested now. Thanks ;)
>>>> OpenKollab needs an open architectural base so it can support a variety
>>>> of small group developers already at work on specific projects such as your
>>>> own. Now we need guys like you to focus on creating that center from which
>>>> all varieties might flourish. I am now creating a process model with this
>>>> group as a template to begin to see what people's needs are in forming
>>>> projects outside organizational boundaries.
>>>> Matt Cooperrider began a subproject within OK to create a meetup.comOpenKollab group.
>>>> From what I hear, and soon to explore further, is meetup.com is not
>>>> just a platform that builds face-to-face meetings, but a project tool as
>>>> well, with virtual conference features and such. My recollection of
>>>> meetup.com is a few years old, back when it was just a face-to-face
>>>> tool. From what I gather, Matt is forming this to surface a core team of
>>>> developers for the OpenKollab process and platform to
>>>> better distinguish between discussion and development. Matt has a contact
>>>> within the meetup.com development team. That should be helpful.
>>>> There are a few coders in this project, I just need to get in touch with
>>>> them directly to see what they want to do.
>>>> I also need to get in touch with everyone that wants to develop the
>>>> process model.
>>>> And artists as well...
>>>> I have learned from constructing web based learning systems that the way
>>>>> you set out to create tools is not going to be universally re-usable, but
>>>>> instead will probably meet the needs of a significant niche in the long tail
>>>>> of needs.
>>>> OK must meet the niche and the entirety of the long tail of needs. The
>>>> models I am attempting to build with this community will simply be an open
>>>> template to inspire the do-it-all web-to-DIY to come. I'm only attempting to
>>>> get the ball rolling on presenting a better way to link everyone into one
>>>> open interface where everything is socially networked (people, interests,
>>>> projects, designs, land, materials, ecologies, ect). I really hope my
>>>> intentions are becoming clearer. I just want to see where you might fit into
>>>> this, because it seems what you're doing now, like with FLOWS, is vital to
>>>> OK without altering much of what you're already doing.
>>>> What this means is that you'll need to decide whether you want to
>>>>> dedicate to serving that niche, or if you want to help a broader base.
>>>> Both. I hope that is now clear.
>>>>> if broader base, your tools and processes and the way that they can be
>>>>> configured need to be highly adaptable and changeable. So, the above
>>>>> description does have adaptability and evolve-ability in some ways, but is
>>>>> tightly coupled and hard wired in others.
>>>> I agree. Like in terms of the consensus assumption I posed, groups
>>>> should decide whether consensus is necessary or not or of what form of
>>>> governance they want with each defined process. A consensus approach might
>>>> be (a potential 'is') default setting or template created by another
>>>> I really think we're on the same page here, Sam, it just seems I need to
>>>> better express the openness for a decision path after describing each
>>>> process. I've made the assumption the reader can pick or add to each
>>>> described process. I'll be sure to clarify this as we move forward. I
>>>> suppose in a way I have by describing these models as sessions. (See:
>>>> http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Process_Model) The OK group did a
>>>> process session before I arrived previously titled spec and changed to
>>>> Process Model Session 1, so now on the wagn three sessions are listed. I
>>>> hope this representation will demonstrate the flexibility of the model
>>>> without getting lost or leaving something without a direction at all.
>>>> I hope you might attract some readings that relate to systems or process
>>>> modeling and development so that can improve that design if necessary. I'll
>>>> add them to Resources.
>>>> I don't want this group to end up like the Open Manufacturing list. This
>>>> is why I came aboard quickly while the iron is clearly hot, because I know
>>>> after a measure of time people will fall into assumptive traps and stagnate.
>>>> This is not to say I think the OM list is a failure or that the people there
>>>> are inept, quite the contrary. It is a really great list in terms of other
>>>> lists that came before it. Brilliant people are discussing brilliant things
>>>> and posting news and other media that relate to the subjects we've
>>>> discussed. Its now well established as a learning community and discussion
>>>> group with just a handful of highly active participants like Paul and Bryan,
>>>> (that may well have kept the list alive) but now as the group has exceeded
>>>> 200 subscribers, more folk are coming into the discussive mix. The ideas I
>>>> wanted to pursue at the time when forming the OM list were too vague to be
>>>> of much help to anything like OK if it were to start then. By the time I
>>>> developed a pretty good idea in the direction OK is pursuing, the group had
>>>> already settled into a pattern that many other discussion lists have. What
>>>> I'm coming to understand by watching the OK community come alive is that
>>>> without "real time engagement" links within the group are diminished from
>>>> each other and the results are what you find in the majority of e-mail based
>>>> discussion lists today. I'm glad I started the group, its a great group, and
>>>> it will continue to add to the theoretical work now being applied to OK.
>>>> Now is the chance to note to Matt that a general discussion about this
>>>> area is already available and that we can keep the existing OK list
>>>> development focused. If we do sense more general discussion surfacing, we
>>>> can start new lists that distinguish between the two. I say this from
>>>> experience, when Bryan Bishop tried to establish a development discussion
>>>> group for OM it flopped. I could go into why, but that's fodder for another
>>>> discussion, one I'd rather have at OM. I'll start one if you're interested,
>>>> but I'm more interested in developing OK with you. ;)
>>>>> The metaphor for architecture for a malleable collaboration base is
>>>>> "small pieces loosely joined". Many small reusable and reconfigurable parts,
>>>>> all optional, and the whole systems itself optional. You want to make it
>>>>> really easy to add new tools, or for people to work with their existing
>>>>> tools in conjunction with yours. On top of that, I would not even start to
>>>>> design and build tools until you actually have some real world people to
>>>>> work with, who are asking for web based collab tools, and let them drive the
>>>>> design. But, that is just me.
>>>> I agree. Let the user's drive the needs, then develop solutions. In this
>>>> universal architecture there must be a series of "project templates" or
>>>> solutions that are stored in a user friendly directory to use and revise
>>>> when needed. These revisions then add to the template repository. This
>>>> process can apply not only to projects--but all things--anything imaginable.
>>>> So long as we keep it an open, transparent, and as gift economic as possible
>>>> I'm very confident the "anything imaginable" will be a good thing for more
>>>> people than what platform or "conditions creators" we have available today.
>>>> The 'people' >> 'interest' >> 'project' >> 'design' >> 'resources' as a
>>>> process formula (or something like that) will found the pursuit of the many
>>>> aims to come. Its just a matter of "what do you want to do and how can we
>>>> apply that to the OK platform." The user is maximized by OpenKollab--this
>>>> vital link--which connects the person to the world that person may have an
>>>> interest, and in easily pursuing these interests, when using this platform,
>>>> the actions benefit the world. We're already seeing this development in the
>>>> many process outlines that have come before as, Sam, you've mentioned--from
>>>> Memex before to Facebook and Deepqa today. If we, even as a small group,
>>>> keep our heads up, our eyes clear, and have an active sincere interest in
>>>> one another, the trust from within our group will spread to others to better
>>>> develop the OK platform as we call it presently, and so we have ourself that
>>>> little everything module in no time--safe and sound. ;)
>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>> Research: http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition."
- Carl Sagan
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch