[p2p-research] Authority, Representation and Secession in a P2P Network

Tue Aug 3 00:53:15 CEST 2010

In my research lately I've noticed that there's at least 2 places where
representation is used...places might not be the right term.

In many systems there are issues around time.  On one hand peers don't have
enough time to participate in governance.  For some reason.  On the other
hand, the "horizon" for a resource...for renewal, exapansion etc, that
horizon is only interesting to certain people.

So, time is a place where representation is used.  The reasons for
representation vary with the number of perspectives represented in the
system, but time seems to be a mitigating factor.

Another place is merit, knowledge, or expertise.  It goes the same route.
 Some peers don't have time to develop expertise, while others with
expertise develop a following a people who trust them to proxy as a rep.

It is likely that any 'currency commons' has similar dynamics, with a set of
perspectives.  I've been wondering about a list of such things.  We had the
P2P Metrics page and I was intending to write something there about how we
look at systems from the inside and outside as data points.  Then you have
how peers examine the same things, like reputation and merit and time for
resources and themselves from inside the system.

Perhaps representation comes in every time anyone feels a form of
'insufficiency' with something like time or expertise.  That representation
isn;t always explicit.

What I find troubling about representation systems is that they endure
without getting a rebuild, of the system, the logic and the perspectives.
 They just sit there, relevant or not to current goings-on.  I've seen the
best intentioned people abuse such things.  I would call it abuse because
the use of assumptions about the correctness of an already existing system
substitutes for a re-examination of the system and its utility.

I'm of the opinion that 'currency commons' like the one for time and
expertise, that interact all the way around the
subject/intersubjective/objective/interobjective loop are one way to examine
how this functions.  I think a fully fractal system should take this into
account, somehow, and it's exhausting, so we need some basic rules like
simple cellular automata to handle iteration so as to avoid the huge bog
down of figuring it all out ahead of time.

Lately I've been doing a little side course in Modal Logic, which is used
for inference of potentia.  It's related to this and sort of
'currency independent.  I'd recommend it as a way of thinking about such
things that's more robust and lighter weight than specialized rules for
every currency, which I think are silly.

Alex

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> Patrick,
>
> The first question that comes to mind is:
>
> How do we then *begin* co-ownership of physical resources? Where do we
> start? Do we all pitch in money to by hosting?  Does it count if we
> are merely leasing a server? Must awe actually fully own the hardware
> and network connections? Where will we draw the line?
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Can the concepts of authority and representation be
> > used within a network that claims to be Peer2Peer?
> >
> > Is it realistic to give *everyone* 'root' access to a shared resource?
> >
> > Is it realistic to give *everyone* the keys to our community center?
> >
> > There seems to be a need for gate-keeping - especially when
> > protecting ourselves from 'outsiders' that are not yet trusted.
> >
> > But even within a trusted circle, is there a level of scale when
> > representation *must* come into play?
> >
> > This seems a valid question considering the failure of
> > current 'authorities' and 'representatives' to achieve the
> > goals of those they supposedly serve.
> >
> > But it also seems difficult to answer given the chaos
> > that might ensue if there were no 'levels' of access to ...
> > I'm not sure yet what needs to be constrained...
> >
> > I wonder if part of it may be the need to "slow down" the
> > deliberation of change so we can discover what all other
> > co-owners want in each case.
> >
> > But does such deliberation require 'representation' and
> > levels of 'authority', or could it be done in some other way?
> >
> > If giving everyone 'root' access is wrong, maybe giving
> > any one person 'root' access is also wrong?
> >
> > Is that why we tend toward *groups* of representatives?
> >
> > But even in that case we fail to achieve freedom because
> > those committees almost invariably make decisions and
> > enact policy that suffers from the problem of "Tyranny
> > of the Majority" because there is not an easy way for
> > individuals and minority sub-groups to secede from the
> > majority without loosing all of their investments.
> >
> > It is said these minorities have the "Right to Leave", but
> > that is not sufficient because they then relinquish all the
> > value they have added.
> >
> > I think part of the solution lies in discovering a way for
> > these non-majority groups to 'split' or 'fork' those physical
> > resources during such conflicts.  But that pre-supposes
> > they had real ownership to begin with - which is usually
> > not the case, so real co-ownership may be a pre-condition
> > to sharing physical resources in a P2P manner.
> >
> > * Notice even things you may not think of as 'physical' -
> > such as a wiki - really *are* because of the equipment
> > needed to 'host' that activity.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2presearch mailing list
> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://forwardfound.org
> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> http://localfoodsystems.org
> http://notanemployee.net
> http://communitywiki.org
> http://p2pfoundation.net
>
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100803/4c11ff8c/attachment-0001.html>