[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

[Ryan Lanham]

Per your suggestions below, here is a revised Section 2:

 [edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles&action=edit&section=41>
] Article 2. Recognition of the Commons

A. Concepts such as Open Access <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Access>, Open
Source <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source>, Open
Content<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Content>,
Creative Commons <http://p2pfoundation.net/Creative_Commons>, Science
Commons <http://p2pfoundation.net/Science_Commons> and their supporting
frameworks are consistent with the core principles of p2p.

B. While not specifically non-commercial, p2p interactions recognize the
value and ideal of expanding shared and freely available resources
particularly related to knowledge and information but also to design, art,
architecture and other conceptual goods that can be framed as intellectual
property.

C. Commercial gains are more consistent with p2p when they benefit entities
that are themselves inclined to participate in more frequent p2p
interactions. That is, a firm that contributes to the commons is more
consistent with p2p than one that extracts content from the commons, alters
it for profit, and then sells a quasi-p2p system.

D. Attribution and acknowledgment of contributions are consistent with p2p,
and the development of peer-reviewed
reputations<http://buildingreputation.com/doku.php?id=chapter2>and
ratings can be consistent with a p2p ethos so long as they reflect
contributions to p2p or the commons rather than extrinsic or non-p2p
achievements.

E. Missuse, overuse, abuse or sabotage of commons can in no way be
consistent with a valid p2p ethos. Mutual trust is a necessary and valued
component of p2p participation. A strong P2P ethos would sympathize with
ideas that the tragedy of the commons is neither inevitable or natural to
humans.

F. Participation in a commons, from a p2p perspective, is less about
membership than it is about rights and responsibilities. Participation does
not lead to an exclusionary perspective. A peer project only judges persons
on their voluntary participation to the common object, without requiring
involuntary changes in identity concerning matters unconnected to the
project.

G. What to avoid: P2P interactions should avoid a permission
culture<http://p2pfoundation.net/Permission_culture>.
That is, private
copyrights<http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Against_perpetual_copyright>,
trade secrets<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Trade_secrets&action=edit&redlink=1>,
intellectual property<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Intellectual_property&action=edit&redlink=1>boundaries
or other boundaries between attributed contributions are actively
discouraged. Overall, rigid boundary systems of property are inconsistent
with a p2p ethos.

Ryan Lanham



On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> I think we understand each other, not sure if it is necessary to have a
> whole paragraph to indicate this subtle discussion ?
>
> I'll leave it up to you?
>
> (perhaps we can say that a peer project only judges persons on their
> voluntary participation to the common object, without requiring involuntary
> changes in identity in matters unconnected to the project; that
> differentiates with premodern communities that do require it)
>
> Michel
>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Interesting Michel.  I suppose it is inevitable that someone must be
>> called retro by being postmodern, and I am it, it seems.
>>
>> Seriously, I understand what you are saying and I agree.  Your view is
>> that the commons is a source of social linkage and therefore identity.  But
>> one would also like to avoid compulsory Nehru suits or Mao caps at the same
>> time.  We want an artistic freedom to express along with a willingness to
>> share...not an obligatory commitment to join the Borg (since Star Trek seems
>> vogue now.)
>>
>> One area where I think P2P is sharply in contrast with socialism is in the
>> fact that P2P seems to eschew any notion of obligatory participation.
>>
>> Perhaps we might say something like the following:
>>
>> P2P is not a framework for institutionalizing worldviews or standardizing
>> political wills.  It is not ideological in any strong sense.  Rather, it is
>> a voluntary model where, even when commitment is quite high and very deeply
>> felt, it is inappropriate for a participant to feel bound to a specific way
>> of being, appearing, acting or judging in order to share in a P2P ethos.  At
>> the same time, destructive anti-commons actions, or highly heterodox
>> expressions to the point of being highly distracting and disruptive for most
>> participants in a sharing and trust model is counter-productive and
>> appropriately sanctioned by those charged to protect a group,
>>
>> That seems overwrought and repetitive with some other sections, but I
>> throw it out for consideration..
>>
>>
>> Ryan Lanham
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Michel Bauwens <
>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan,
>>>
>>> I have moved to section to.
>>>
>>> I only have one question:
>>>
>>> - (commons) is usually of low intensity in relationship to a
>>> participant's identity formation.
>>>
>>> hmm ... I'm actually assuming that people are more and more building
>>> their identities through their engagement with the commons
>>>
>>> see:
>>>
>>> "*Postmodernism was all about deconstructing oppressive mental
>>> structures that we inherited from modernity. Amongst other things the
>>> Cartesian subject/object split and the alienating effects of Kantian's
>>> impossibility of knowing true reality; it was a necessary destructive
>>> passage, a cleaning out process, but it didn't, as its names "post"-
>>> indicate, construct anything. So in my view, if modernity was about
>>> constructing the individual (along subject/object divisions), and
>>> postmodernity about deconstructing this, then this new era, which I'ld like
>>> to call the era of participation, is about constructing relationality or
>>> participation. We are not going back to the premodern wholistic era and
>>> feelings, but just as modernity was about rigorously individualising
>>> everything, eventually reaching the current dead-end of hyper-individualism,
>>> we are now just as rigorously 'relationising' everything. If in premodernity
>>> we thought, we are parts of a whole that is one and above us, and in
>>> modernity we thought we are separate and unified individuals, a world onto
>>> ourselves, and in postmodernity saw ourselves fragmenting, and pretty much
>>> lamented this, then this is the mash-up era. We now know that all this
>>> fragments can be reconstructed with the zillions of fragment of the others,
>>> into zillions of commonalities, into temporary wholes that are so many new
>>> creative projects, but all united in a ever-moving Commons that is open to
>>> all of us..*
>>>
>>> So the fragmentation of postmodernity is a given for us now, but we are
>>> no longer lamenting, we are discovering the technologies (infrastructural,
>>> collaborative-software-ish, political, but above all the mental and
>>> epistemological) that allow us to use this fragmentation to create the Great
>>> Cosmic Mash-Up. That is the historical task of the emerging Peer to Peer Era
>>> *."*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michel, in order to address your concern: I added Item H below.  See if
>>>> that affirmation of moral action makes you more comfortable with Section 1.
>>>> Also, for those new to the discussion, we are collaborating on
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles specifically
>>>> Article 1 and subsequent.  Any and all comments, changes, criticisms, etc.
>>>> are welcome.
>>>>
>>>>  [edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles&action=edit&section=40>
>>>> ] Article 1. P2P Interactions
>>>>
>>>> A. High quality P2P <http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P> interactions exist
>>>> between peers. Peers typically recognize and interact with each other
>>>> without reference to rank or hierarchies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Hierarchies&action=edit&redlink=1>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to external
>>>> drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige in
>>>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>>>>
>>>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos
>>>> embodies trying to act with goodness and goodwill<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Goodwill&action=edit&redlink=1>as well as with practical skills and wisdom.
>>>>
>>>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p ethos) as
>>>> qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons<http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission critical
>>>> functionality <http://p2pfoundation.net/Mission_critical_functionality>.
>>>> For example, this might involve efforts that save lives, advance learning
>>>> and understanding, enable sustainable economic processes or otherwise
>>>> support or enable key components of the public good as openly understood in
>>>> free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>>>>
>>>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or
>>>> organizations. Hierachies that impose governance on p2p interactions that
>>>> are otherwise consistent with social standards and laws are not appropriate
>>>> to the ethos. This is particularly true if the party imposing governance is
>>>> acting with some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and harmless
>>>> p2p interactions.
>>>>
>>>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of value
>>>> from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to a given
>>>> interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of p2p value
>>>> worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing fees are
>>>> not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>>>>
>>>> H. A P2P ethos is consistent with advancing the interests of the
>>>> underprivileged, the weak, those on the bottom of the digital divide, or any
>>>> who have need of a more sustaining commons provided through fair and honest
>>>> means.
>>>>
>>>> I. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should not be
>>>> anonymous[3]<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles#_note-Anonymity>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> J. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent human
>>>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established organizational
>>>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p seeks to
>>>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>>>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>>>>
>>>> Ryan Lanham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>>>
>>>>> only a minor remark then for this first section, I feel I agree with
>>>>> all your formulations
>>>>>
>>>>>  On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been overwhelmed lately, but ready now to engage with your core
>>>>>> principles,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it be useful for you to discuss your draft, say section by
>>>>>> section, starting with this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you agree, I will start commenting after receiving that reply:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Article 1. P2P Interactions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A. High quality P2P <http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P> interactions exist
>>>>>> between peers. Peers typically recognize and interact with each other
>>>>>> without reference to rank or hierarchies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Hierarchies&action=edit&redlink=1>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here a reference to Equipotentiality may be useful? see
>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to
>>>>>> external drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige in
>>>>>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos
>>>>>> embodies trying to act with goodness and goodwill<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Goodwill&action=edit&redlink=1>as well as with practical skills and wisdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p ethos)
>>>>>> as qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons<http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission critical
>>>>>> functionality<http://p2pfoundation.net/Mission_critical_functionality>.
>>>>>> For example, this might involve efforts that save lives, advance learning
>>>>>> and understanding, enable sustainable economic processes or otherwise
>>>>>> support or enable key components of the public good as openly understood in
>>>>>> free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or
>>>>>> organizations. Hierachies that impose governance on p2p interactions that
>>>>>> are otherwise consistent with social standards and laws are not appropriate
>>>>>> to the ethos. This is particularly true if the party imposing governance is
>>>>>> acting with some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and harmless
>>>>>> p2p interactions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of value
>>>>>> from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to a given
>>>>>> interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of p2p value
>>>>>> worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing fees are
>>>>>> not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should not
>>>>>> be anonymous[3]<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles#_note-Anonymity>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent human
>>>>>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established organizational
>>>>>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p seeks to
>>>>>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>>>>>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I probably agree with does not aim, but neither would it be opposed to
>>>>> legimate attempts to change them, see for example the landless movement in
>>>>> Brazil?
>>>>>
>>>>> Michel
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090513/b6da7811/attachment-0001.html>