[p2p-research] barter software update

[Samuel Rose]

Michael thanks for reply:

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM, michael linton
<michael.linton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Matt & Sam,
>
> I really can't let this pass uncommented, as - in my humble opinion -
> there's a lot of misconception in these exchanges, particularly where you
> touch on scale, administration, software flexibility and "community to
> community" systems.
>
> The "connected pods" make as much sense here as attempting confederation of
> compuserve, aol etc etc rather than using the internet.
>
> Core group "burnout" is - in my experience - ALWAYS a matter of core group
> dysfunction.  It's never been a system problem.
>

I can definitely 100% accept what you are saying. it makes total sense

Yet, my question earlier, about whether LETS *should* even scale, is
basically thinking more from a theoretical/modeling perspective. That
if a community currency is appropriate on a local scale, and helps
people solve problems on a local scale (assuming no core group(s)
dysfunction).

Basically, that LETS may be more appropriate for smaller scales, and
that maybe LETS really shouldn't scale at all. That's a potential
response to "LETS doesn't scale well". Yet, another response is what
you are saying Michael, which is that LETS and community currencies
will tend to sink or swim based on the interest and enthusiasm of
people using, not based on choice of software systems.

I also like the idea of confederation.  Yet, I am really focused on
"why do these even need to work together at all?" I think it's an
important question




>
> cheers,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I did take a look. I personally am not interested in those systems for
>> a variety of reasons. (using proprietary software, no apparent API,
>> too centralized, not flexible enough to meet emerging local/unique
>> needs from what I can tell)
>>
>> All that being said, it could be a good choice for some
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Matt Boggs <matt at digiblade.com> wrote:
>> > In my long chat with Gary, we both looked at the historical model of
>> > published LETS systems since the '80s and some other similar systems. We
>> > concluded that in these  'paticipatory economies', the core group
>> > (administrators, etc) would burn out after the membership reached
>> > 300-500.
>> > We also concluded that creating connected 'pods' of 3-500 would keep the
>> > system going but still be under one main database. Has anyone looked at
>> > the
>> > links to the barter system yet that Gary runs ?
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Samuel Rose [mailto:samuel.rose at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:24 AM
>> > To: Michel Bauwens
>> > Cc: Matt Boggs; p2presearch at listcultures.org; Thomas Greco -- thg;
>> > Bernard
>> > Lietaer; Jean-François Noubel; Georg Pleger; michael linton
>> > Subject: Re: [p2p-research] barter software update
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Michel Bauwens
>> > <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Citizen-oriented approaches, such as LETS, do not seem to scale, but
>> >> may be useful within the community  ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Michel
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This caught my eye. Got me thinking about when and where there might be
>> > needs for scaling beyond a local community, and how an flexible
>> > architecture
>> > and governance for community to community systems might realistically
>> > look.
>> >
>> > I am partly of the opinion that LETS may not really need to scale, and
>> > if it
>> > reaches the point where it needs to, I wonder what a commons maintaining
>> > route might be for moving forward?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > Sam Rose
>> > Social Synergy
>> > Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
>> > Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
>> > skype: samuelrose
>> > email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
>> > http://socialsynergyweb.com
>> > http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
>> > http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
>> > http://socialmediaclassroom.com
>> > http://localfoodsystems.org
>> > http://notanemployee.net
>> > http://communitywiki.org
>> >
>> > "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
>> > ambition."
>> > - Carl Sagan
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Sam Rose
>> Social Synergy
>> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
>> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
>> skype: samuelrose
>> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
>> http://socialsynergyweb.com
>> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
>> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
>> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
>> http://localfoodsystems.org
>> http://notanemployee.net
>> http://communitywiki.org
>>
>> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
>> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>
>



-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan