[p2p-research] On Alex Rollin stated intentions to expel me from the P2P Foundation board
Denis Postle
d.postle at btinternet.com
Thu Aug 12 14:47:02 CEST 2010
Hello Michel and Alex,
I am a newcomer to P2P research list (but not to peer networking) and
have been slow to catch up with the coding/content dispute that has
broken here. I've now read most of the recent contributions and Michel I
want to assure you of my support in how you have been handling this.
It may be as the scope and scale of p2p evolves that you could pay some
attention to how your role plays out. This is true for any of us,
reflexively being intelligent about how we do what we do, and especially
with reference to power.
However I see you as being persistently patient and facilitative in
dealing with the non-negotiable demands being expressed by Alex, and I
see you Alex as being persistently unaware of how imperious,
duress-laden and domineering your take on wiki-building has been.
Alex, such domination behaviour unhinges the often delicate nuanced
'agreeing to disagree' that cooperative mutuality seems to require. It
generates 'either' 'or' choices. This is not to deny confrontation, ie
unsolicited feedback, but if this is framed as coming from an
over-arching 'right to insist' then it is likely to be destructive of
rapport and trust. Which I would argue are a key ingredient in our
network communities.
Other thoughts/suggestions:
Splitting is a fundamental organic process it is sometimes felt as
tearing but later it can be often something to be pleased about,
especially if a thread of contact, no matter how thin, is maintained
across the divide.
In an situation similar but smaller in scope to yours Michel, I have
found it effective re the network I have been in for 16 years, to
describe what I do as being 'a conduit into and out of the network'.
This coupled with a network agreement that no one can speak FOR the
network, ie no one owns it, means that anyone can speak in their own
voice FROM the network. Through this ground rule I and others have been
able to find an often feisty political voice with which to publicly
raise professional issues that were being denied or swept under the
carpet and to pursue what we feel to be essential positive programmes.
As someone has uggested, the current conflict might also be due to you
both having reached an internet 'glass ceiling' up against which nothing
much can be done without personal face to face contact, preferably with
mediation. Is that out of the question?
Finally, Michel, in recent months I have found in the P2P Foundation
pages a rich, refreshing and inspiring source of orientation and
experience, much of it directly coming from you. I look forward to this
flourishing being sustained.
Greetings
Denis
On 12/08/2010 10:07, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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://p2pfoundation.net/> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>
>> >
>> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> <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 <mailto:samuel.rose at gmail.com>
>> http://forwardfound.org <http://forwardfound.org/>
>> http://futureforwardinstitute.org
>> <http://futureforwardinstitute.org/>
>> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
>> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
>> http://socialmediaclassroom.com <http://socialmediaclassroom.com/>
>> http://localfoodsystems.org <http://localfoodsystems.org/>
>> http://notanemployee.net <http://notanemployee.net/>
>> http://communitywiki.org <http://communitywiki.org/>
>> http://p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net/>
>>
>> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
>> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net
>> <http://p2pfoundation.net/> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>> <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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100812/6c16e5f9/attachment.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list