[p2p-research] barter software update

[Matt Boggs]

I am most certainly up for a live chat on this and could even have Gary
Lasater chime in as well. He seems like a decent knowledgeable fellow.
I believe in the 'pod' system. It is no different than different districts
or precincts in local police forces as a good example.

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Rose [mailto:samuel.rose at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:32 PM
To: michael linton
Cc: Matt Boggs; Michel Bauwens; p2presearch at listcultures.org; Thomas Greco
-- thg; Bernard Lietaer; Jean-François Noubel; Georg Pleger; ernieyacub
Subject: Re: [p2p-research] barter software update

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