[p2p-research] [p2p energy economy] Re: Open Source Manufacturing

Sun Mar 22 18:28:43 CET 2009

By 'subjective' I was referring to the set of aspects of openness (or the
set of requirements for openness) that Ryan brought into the discussion.
Not everyone agrees on the scope of that set, and therefore not everyone
agrees on what defines open.

For example, in my definition (which is subjective) I include all the
aspects Ryan mentioned plus the following:

1. The production organization/process/system must be able to renew (not
just reuse) its resources (both labor and material) over time so as not to
created long-lasting centers of power and dependency within its hierarchy.

2. The production organization/process/system must be part of the greater
whole, i.e. maximum autonomy through maximum inter-dependence, and all such
greater wholes must themselves be open (by this extended definition), i.e.
they must be able to renew their resources (both labor and material)

3. The production organization/process/system must retain some mystery in
some sense in order for it to compete against other instances of itself or
other production organizations/processes/systems that exist in the same
market. That is because the market can only support a finite number of
producers so competition will happen naturally as a way of limiting the
number of producers. Therefore, those organizations that are completely open
(ones that do not retain any mystery) will be copied and out done and thus
eliminated from the gene pool.

4. The production organization/process/system must be open to change in its
design not just open to renewal of its labor and material. The design must
evolve and trial and error evolutionary process must be embraced, including
acceptance of the risk for catastrophic or fatal errors, i.e. acceptance of
death.

You may think these are extreme conditions (or aspects of the requirements
for openness) but I think they're essential for a high-performance open
economy. And that's why the definition of 'open' is subjective (in terms of
the what conditions/aspects must be satisfied before we consider a system to
be open. I happen to be in the extreme camp because when I happen to have an
extreme need for extreme change (from the current state.) Some may do with a
smaller set of requirements. And some may go even further than I have in my
set of requirements. Hence, the subjectivity of what is 'open.'

Marc

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are, as the wiki entry suggests, vectors to open.  It isn't a single
> scale.
>
> My crack at it:
>
> Open
>
> Open [systems, processes, organizations] attempt to minimize the
> associative advantage of those who organize knowledge in favor of the
> advantage of larger communities of stakeholders who are often less empowered
> to organize knowledge in similar ways.  Viewing technology as knowledge that
> enables, open technologists work toward inclusive and broad contributions
> rather than self-interested and controlling agendas.  Such enabling is more
> likely to foster positive feedback loops and dependent expansions than
> closed, self-interested efforts.  There are numerous aspects (or vectors) of
> openness that can include the following items (and others):
>
> 1. Transparancy of governance: The decisions, information inputs, research
> and finances of entities claiming openness are readily accessible
> particularly to those entities such as journalists, bloggers, activists and
> the like who serve as community watchdogs and inspectors.
>
> 2. Inclusive membership for production and access to benefits:  Open
> entities willingly include both producers and consumers of their outputs
> with minimal barriers to entry, particularly barriers that transfer any
> benefit to those who have previously contributed as producers or organizers
> of knowledge.
>
> 3. Low overhead:  Open entities attempt to perform their services with
> minimal costs of bureaucratic function.  This priority tends to enforce
> limited missions of open entities rather than expansive, government-like
> charters.
>
> 4. Technocratic and democratic decision processes:  Merit as a priority in
> decision criteria refers back to rational rules of selection for quality,
> efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness to consumers rather than criteria
> that inure to producers or organizers of knowledge.  In the absence of
> technocratic criteria, democratic processes emphasizing inclusiveness are
> prioritized.
>
> 5. Reuse and extension:  Open entities prioritize reuse of resources and
> encourage broad production and expansion of knowledge bases without links to
> tightly controlled, owned, or otherwise consumer value limited components of
> improvement.
>
>
> Ryan Lanham
>
>
>
> 2009/3/22 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>
>> a quick response to Marc, sorry I'm not answering more when on the road ..
>>
>> Marc:
>>
>> I do not think open is entirely subjective and beyond definition, to that
>> definition would be contextual to our 'movement'
>>
>> see http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Open for links to open definition,
>>
>> as well as http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Standards where I keep a
>> list of all open licenses and how they define openness,
>>
>> some kind of higher-level abstraction of these various attempts should be
>> a possiblity, with perhaps a gradation in degrees of openness, from relative
>> to 'near absolute'?
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:06 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > My definition of "open production system" overlaps with "renewable
>>> > production system", i.e. if it's not designed to renew itself then it's
>>> not
>>> > designed to be "open"
>>>
>>> I can see your study of energy-flows coming through in this viewpoint.
>>>  The claim is "high level" enough to be digested, but is not obvious.
>>>
>>> How about this variation: Open systems can 'exist' or 'live' or
>>> 'survive' without external dependencies.
>>>
>>> Or even: Open to Live.  Or (more negatively): Open or Die.
>>>
>>>
>>> > There are of course many meaning of "open" and I think the word itself
>>> is
>>> > subjective.
>>> >
>>> > That's why I believe we ought to look beyond "open" and "closed" and
>>> > consider the optimum model for sustainability and evolution, which
>>> would
>>> > have a mix of open and closed (or not so open) aspects.
>>> >
>>> > It's a complex issue indeed which is why it requires a complex answer,
>>> not
>>> > black or white like closed vs open.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I agree here too.
>>>
>>> Marc, you say the bigger Free Software projects are not 'open' because
>>> of the financial support - and from that the external control over the
>>> product.
>>>
>>> This is partially correct, and I want to discuss where the line is
>>> drawn, or in other words, how such projects are 'open' in some ways,
>>> while being 'closed' in other ways.  As you say, it is a complex
>>> question/answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> The difference appears to me to be a mix of naming (Trademark) and
>>> timing (contract against future labor).
>>>
>>>
>>> I think of the "sources" of a software project as the primary "Means
>>> of Production" for that product.  It's true they require physical
>>> devices (a PC) to create, store and display them, but the low price of
>>> this barrier-to-entry causes it to be of little importance for
>>> singular-ownership.
>>>
>>> Therefore, software development, even of giant-funded projects like
>>> Firefox and the Linux kernel are partially 'open' to anyone who can
>>> afford to purchase or rent a PC and sign-up for a network connection
>>> (ISP costs), or can afford to purchase a CD of the *CURRENT* sources
>>> through snail-mail.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, it is true that future production specifically entitled
>>> "Firefox(TM) or Linux(TM) or VirtualBox(TM), etc." is temporarily
>>> closed during that development period, and the direction of that
>>> development under the control of the group owning that Trademark.
>>>
>>> But that is only true *UNTIL* they make another release.  At that
>>> point, the Means of Production (the sources) are again available to
>>> anyone receiving the Product (object code).
>>>
>>> This is the basis and reasoning for 'forking' a project.
>>>
>>> There is more to say here about the hardware and energy required to
>>> 'host' any new fork, but I've already talked too much about that in
>>> the past...
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>
>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>
>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090322/eeb31526/attachment-0001.html>