[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

[Ryan Lanham]

Historic map of fractal-related topics:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/Complexity-map-overview.png

Begs the question, whither P2P?

Ryan

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > This would be interesting as a finding at a number of levels.  There is,
> for
> > example, fractal generating software.  Could one design a system to
> invent
> > new P2P designs?  What would be wrong with that thought?  Or would it be
> > generating sharing arenas?  Something here begs for a link to knowledge
> > management theory...people like Dave Snowden.
> >
> > Also, could we uncover the fractal rules for existing P2P systems?
> > Wikipedia?
> >
>
> I think we can identify some rules
>
> Although... :-)
>
> > Some fractal rules(?):
> >
> > 1. Governance decisions are made close to the transaction
>
> This is a good candidate for a common property in p2p systems
>
> > 2. Sharers are the primary innovators, not the systems designers
>
> Hmmm...
>
> designers and sharers (producers) are "roles" that are increasingly
> interchangeable.
>
> Why? there is a rule in p2p systems that is what Paul hartzog and I
> call the principle of "plurality". Access to the tools of design, the
> means of production, and the networks for sharing means that one
> person can, and in significant numbers does, fill all roles
>
> All that being said, it was the innovation of sharing that paved the
> way for access. So, I actually think that you are right here. Those
> who shared created best innovations (technology, social governance,
> etc) that routed around blockages in the system, and paved the way for
> much of what I describe above
>
>
> > 3. Plans are impossible, but norms are essential
>
> Agree, yet, p2p networks smash the paradigm of what "norms" look like,
> both because of diversity in what emerges, and plurality of ways for
> networks to connect.
>
> Still there are norms (commons based resource pooling, etc etc)
>
> > 4. For a norm to be broken requires explicit justification
>
> Maybe. Problem is that the systems afford the rights to fork and
> leave. Right to fork and leave is a simple rule for sure.
>
> I think you may be talking about something else though, and it'd be
> worthwhile to think about an example from real life that you've
> observed that demonstrates what you are referring to above
>
> >
> > These are obviously not analytical, but just a thought.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> --
> --
> 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
>



-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091025/e7242ae3/attachment.html>