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.

Michel