[p2p-research] On Alex Rollin stated intentions to expel me from the P2P Foundation board

Thu Aug 12 11:07:10 CEST 2010

Thanks for the people who expressed support.

I want to make a stab at explaining why the technological changes are
important and should be submitted to a process of dialogue, rather than
imposed, as this is the essence of the struggle.

Alex has worked hard, made many useful contributions, and has a number of
obvious skills. On the other hand, this is my considered opinion, he is also
marked by a self-inflation which makes him believe that his vision is the
only valid one, and that challenges to it are necessarily coming from an
inexperienced position. All my private entreaties always ended with the
conclusion, this is the new way, this is how I and we will do it, and you
have to adjust, that's all there is it.

Now what is that position. Alex brings a number of innovations.

First, he thinks P2P knowledge is positivistic and concrete. I.e. there is a
"p2p" way, which he is attempting to spell out in a number of protocols. so
that p2p organizations could follow them or be inspired by them. This is
problematic to me, but it is a possible interpretation, and my view is that,
even if mistaken, such options may nevertheless have fruitful results and
learning as they take place, and can attract a number of people to the P2P
Foundation and p2p ideas. Therefore, I have not objected to Alex creating a
second layer. It is possible in a technology of abundance such as a wiki,
for several layers to co-exist, if care is taken that one vision does not
impinge on the other.

But, Alex also brings a second set of changes, to which I strongly object.
And this is nothing less than a vision of content as code. Alex sees content
as consisting of a series of modular, that can be re-used, pretty much as
software does. To this effect, he inserts all kinds of new code in the wiki.
First of all it clutters the page, making my own editing job much more
difficult. Content is buried in code, hardly visible in any way, and because
that code actually makes content appear in different places at the same
time, makes editing problematic, since two things can happen. First is that
the content is decontextualized and what makes sense in one context, may not
in another. Second is that even code is contextualized. If you put a
subheading with 2 == signs, which indicates a particular place in a
hierarchy of titles, and this appears in different places, then in some
places, this can totally re-organize a page or section, making it
meaningless, since some parts of the previous text will be moved to places
where they don't belong, because their place in the hierarchy has changed.
So, not only is it difficult for me to change a page, but when I do, I have
to make sure that the change is consistent over the various parts where Alex
has seeded that content. And this needs to be done for every piece of code.

Now if his first vision is compatible, his second vision is exclusionary,
since I loose my freedom to easily edit content.

This creates two additional problems. One is that if both visions fuse. What
you then get is material in the wiki, which claims to be positivistic, and
therefore unsigned, and starts telling people, "this is p2p". In that case,
what I do is to put the so-called objective intro in the discussion field
and sign it Alex Rollin, making it a legitimate but partial vision. But of
course, when I do that, I run into all the problems above, and Alex starts
screaming that I'm damaging his code, as changes here, affect changes in
another place.

The second underlying extra problem, and this is probably why we are
fighting it out, is, this new vision and practice is imposed, it is beyond
discussion, and my repeated entreaties to moderate the changes, make them
part of a consensual process, and to insist that there is a respect for the
legacy system, are brushed away systematically as the ravings of an
inexperienced editor who "does not get it". It's my way of the highway, and
people will have noted the last letter that I highlighted as being
declarative. Alex simply thinks that he is here to do certain things, and
that's that.

Now, since Alex has generously hightlighted my own failings in the private
letter he made public, I would like to return the favour and in turn
'psycholigize' the issue.

Alex is a naturally domineering and dominant personality, and I suspect,
that's why he naturally likes peer to peer, since the tyranny of
structurelessness allows him to naturally take a big place and through his
personality, dominate. There is nothing essentially wrong with being one way
or another, though of course, there are drawbacks, just as there are
drawbacks to my personality type. In the case of Alex, I witnessed the
ruthless expulsion of a homeless and drunken man in a bar in Manchester,
which profoundly shocked me, and showed me how he treats people who he
considers weak. He does the same online, in every case of conflict, Alex is
always happy to send an extra private email to kick the offender an extra
way when he or she is down. Ask the author of this page,
http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Energy_Economy, who will never forget the
humilation hoisted upon him in this particular fashion.

Again, nobody is perfect, but it has to be mentioned here because it is
related to our conflict.

The problem with Alex and me is essentially relational. If Alex creates his
own resources, assumes a leadership role, and creates followers, then he may
succeed in creating an outfit like the Open Source Ecology, a worthy project
but where it is clear that there is a personal law of the land.

But, if Alex enters an existing project, and basically behaves as he is the
superior next leader who from here on now dictates the new terms, and cannot
consider me as a peer, let alone an important peer, then these traits become
poisonous.

If Alex would have simply said, as most people coming here say, ok I hear
you, I'll take it into account, and in case of disagreement, "let's discuss
this on the mailing list and hear what others say", then of course, there
would have no problem.

The solution would be easy, he would continue vision 1, which is compatible,
but would have slowed down vision 2, which is incompatible because it
excludes the legacy approach and makes my editing work a nightmare, apart
from all the other problems a decontextualized vision of text as code poses.

He is incapable of doing that, that is now very clear, and I'm equally
incapable of resigning myself to a new law of the land which is imposed.

Still at this stage, the problem could have been solved easily, by a
collective request to Alex that he moderates his archictectural
interventions, if he would have been able to live with that limitation,
i.e. use only those freedoms which do not impede others.

However, with a stated intention to expel me from the board if not the
foundation, such a compromise becomes impossible, I cannot allow a hostile
takeover at this stage of the process.

Alex has to express his creativity elswhere, and use his warrior energies to
create his own community.

I/we can do everything in our power to make this possible, he can use all
the material in a fork, he can make all the necessary appeals to our
contributors, sympathizers and public, so that people can follow him if they
so desire.

If he's right, he will be able to create in a number of years, a rival and
perhaps better p2p expression, than the one we have now,

I wish him good luck,

For me the period of dialogue is over, and I have asked James, who actually
offered this solution himself, to limit Alex capabilities to make
architectural changes. Of course, I do not want to limit his capacity to
create material if he so wishes, if those do not interfere with those of
others.

We can use the occasion to create a number of processes to depersonalize
such conflicts in the future, though I'm not sure we need the inflation of
policy documents that Alex is producing.

Alex continued production of policy documents, to which preciously few
people can respond, are then interpreted by Alex as a lack of opposition,
and he uses this as a basis of authority to create a whole new architecture.
This also needs to slow down, so that the process beccomes organic and
emergent, and participants/contributors have time to process and comment as
a collective.

James, please initiate the technical proceedings to have an embargo on
technical changes. I propose you become the guardian of this, and that any
changes that generates objections, are at least debated before they take
effect.

My objection is clear: text is not software code, and cannot be treated in
the same way. Editing needs to remain easy and text needs to remain
contextualized.

Michel

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Maja van der Velden <maja at xs4all.nl> wrote:

>  Hi Michel,
>
> This is my message in support. I will post it on the list if you think it
> is OK.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Maja
>
> Dear Michel and other P2P supporters,
>
> This message is in support of Michel.
>
> I am not an active participant, but I have for the past years followed with
> interest the discussions, read interesting articles, and followed links to
> interesting sites. I have met Michel several times and I know and appreciate
> the important role he plays in the P2P community, which is built around the
> wiki and foundation. It is the P2P community of people who meet, write
> together, build together, and share and discuss, who make P2P happen.
> Technology plays an important role and, when needed, we should bring in
> changes that help support the P2P community. When technological change is
> being pushed for the sake of 'efficiency and effectiveness', we need to ask
> ourselves some questions: 1) for whom?, 2) for what, and, maybe the most
> important question, 3) could it be done differently? Technology is not some
> neutral tool. When technology changes, everything related to it is affected
> too. Changes in a technological set-up can thus be used in a power struggle,
> in organisational change, etc. Michel's message makes clear that the freedom
> and access afforded by the wiki technology is being used by Alex to
> potentially silence Michel within the P2P foundation and its wiki. With
> freedom comes responsibility, in this case the responsibility to respect our
> peers. Without that P2P is dead!
>
> Maja
>
> Maja van der Velden
> Department of Informatics
> Uiversity of Oslo, Norway
>
>
>  On Aug 11, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>  Dear friends,
>
> now is a good time to come out with public support, sincet things are
> obviously coming to a head,
>
> Michel
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:39 AM
> Subject: Re: On Alex Rollin stated intentions to expel me from the P2P
> Foundation board
> To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>
>
> You've got my support no matter what happens, and I will state it
> publicly any time you need me to.
>
> Sam
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>  > Dear friends,
> >
> > Though my critique of Alex has been harsh, I have explained why I thought
> > that was necessary, I have always made the disctinction between his
> > contributions, and the fact that I was opposed to him imposing new
> > technological directions for our wiki without process and taking into
> > account the opinion of its main contributor.
> >
> > Alex of course retorts that all his propositions are viewable (some of
> them
> > indeed are, many changes are not), but they are of such a volume that it
> is
> > not possible to process by the communty, nor by myself. The result is a
> > rapid escalation of changes, most of them beneficial, but some of them
> > greatly complicating the editorial work, which I oppose. I never said
> this
> > before, but I'd like to reveal now that from the very first day, Alex
> > actually stated that he did not intend to ask for my permission or
> opinion
> > on any matter, which is actually fine, as long as I have the same
> freedom,
> > which I have not if technological changes are imposed.
> >
> > Because of my double evaluation, which recognizes alex's key
> contributions
> > and importance, I even yesterday proposed to James Burke in a Skype
> > conversation to reserve a place for Alex in the new board, pending our
> > decision on which process we would use to make the choices. Because we do
> > not have a membership, the idea was to propose a list of names, publish
> it
> > on the list, and wait for reactions, in order to reach a consensus. Since
> we
> > are seriously considering building a membership organisation, at some
> point
> > in the next few years, probably this will happen through elections.
> >
> > This for the context, why the urgency.
> >
> > Alex has sent me a private letter, which I'm not suppose to divulge, and
> I
> > will not, but it also contains a threat.
> >
> > Namely the following: "You can bet I will vote you off the board as soon
> as
> > I get a chance, but in the mean time you would do very well to keep this
> > kind of thing under wraps."
> >
> > Cleary Alex is not happy with the public discussion, hence the threat of:
> > "be quiet or else" and at the same time, I'm unwilling to keep it under
> > wraps, he knows that, we knew that, so the next step is already declared.
> > This is valuable information.
> >
> > But I do think that his threat and position as a overt enemy in the
> > organisation I have created with James, is not acceptable. I talked about
> a
> > hostile IPO before, and perhaps nobody else saw this or felt this in
> quite
> > the same way as I did, and of course, the primary issue was the
> imposition
> > of a new policy and direction that I did not approve of.
> >
> > This is different, and a step in the escalation in which Alex declares
> > himself an enemy.
> >
> > I do not think this is acceptable. Therefore, it is a matter of principle
> > for me that Alex Rollin will NOT sit on the board, and I'm reinforced not
> > only in the belief that there should be a fork, but now that this fork
> > should be OUTSIDE of the P2P Foundation.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your perspectives.
> >
> > My position is clear: it is not workable to have a declared enemy,
> opposed
> > to the very organisation I have founded and tried to create.
> >
> > Once again, the P2P Foundation is pluralist, and strives for peer
> governance
> > and democracy, but I do believe there is a justifiable boundary when
> > sometimes declares an open civil war.
> >
> > Building the P2P Foundation is both a personal project and a collective
> > project, where hopefully the collective can transcend the personal at
> some
> > point, and obviously, I have my own limits. Nevertheless, I believe my
> > personal contribution has been necessary and important, and that the
> > continued growth of our work should be based on trust. We are not yet at
> a
> > stage where factions vie for dominance, and perhaps never should.
> >
> > What I'm now asking is indeed trust. I have made an evaluation of Alex
> > Rollin, I have tried first to privately convey my unhappiness at imposed
> > policy stages, then made the issue public in face of any progress, but
> > making a careful difference between the attempt to moderate the
> > technological changes, and Alex' otherwise positive contributions.
> >
> > Alex however, is playing a different game, and clearly states his
> intention
> > to expel me and to see support for this. It seems to me that this is a
> time
> > of choosing, and I hope my friends and P2P Foundation supporters will
> > support my continued efforts, and that since Alex finds my presence
> > unacceptable, should found his own, using freely of course, all the
> material
> > that has been collected so far, which is a commons for all to use.
> >
> > Michel Bauwens
> >
> > --
> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >
> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >
> > Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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://futureforwardinstitute.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
>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100812/d160ee67/attachment-0001.html>