[p2p-research] [OK] Necessary research on open enterprise ecosystems

Sun Jan 24 18:18:50 CET 2010

Sam et al.,

A couple of things you say are worth digging into. As an aside and in
response to Chris, this is the sort of discussion that I think is worthwhile
as it serves to provide depth. The problem with 'short burst' communication,
to use Jeff's term is that it is not possible to look closely enough at
anything to actually agree on something, align views etc. Since
collaboration is a central principle for OK, digging deeply enough to
generate alignment, work through tough issues etc.,

You say:
*This suggests that if/where "open" tends to really equal
"commons", that the ecology is a long term investment pay-off (not a
short term quick payoff).  *

*The Question of the Relationship Between Openness and The Commons*
The primary underlying principles that are guiding the development of OK are
a commitment to openness and a commitment to collaborative process. In
operating in this way, we are no doubt both creating a commons and
contributing to a commons (the Ecosystem model, for example). It is
impossible to make all of your information and processes completely open and
not be creating a commons, I would submit. That said, there probably hasn't
been enough thinking on what the relationship between the development of an
open and collaborative operating framework and the development of a commons
is.

Provisionally you could say that the two notions converge based on* longer
term intentions*; a long term positive payoff for all participants, as you
suggest. If so, the longer term intention for OK is explicitly stated;* ' To
Connect Projects To Solve Massive Social Problems'.*

All our activity is developed with this intention and I will, in due course,
be submitting documentation to the group explaining exactly how our every
action today is directly aligned with this larger objective.

We welcome all intellectual property created by OK to used, more generally,
for any project that brings about *positive social change*. I will leave it
up to the discretion of the user of our content to determine what that
means.
*
On Discerning Whether Behaviour is Short or Long Term in Nature*
I confess that it is easy for me to say the above and it raises the question
as to the veracity of my bold claim that our every action is aligned with
the objective of *' Connecting Projects To Solve Massive Social
Problems'.*So how can people gauge if this should be taken seriously.
More generally,
how can one gauge whether others have a short or long term perspective that
guides their actions and their attempts to engage with others?

I would submit the following criteria:

   - Is there a clearly articulated vision? - is it documented?
   - Do the elements of the vision hang together? Can dots be connected?
   - Is there consistency in what is said: it is, in fact, helpful if groups
   develop a certain conceptual architecture that becomes a part of their
   common language; defining with some precision the notion of 'ecosystem', for
   example.
   - Is there consistency between what is stated and what is acted upon?; a
   true connection between creed and deed. *Does the person do what they say
   they are going to do? *This is important as it reflects that a view of
   the long term guides short term commitments.

I believe that the biggest evidence of lack of vision and a short term focus
is an inconsistency between what is said and what is acted upon as it
reflects lack of clarity and lack of focus.

At OK we will, barring natural disasters etc. ALWAYS do what we say we are
going to do.

I am placing this commitment in the public domain because I want to be held
accountable.

This is my personal commitment to those that I am working with.

*Potential Research Topics for Matt*
You say:
*
My opinion is that the best thing you could research now would be how
existing projects successfully operate with a combination of revenue
models and common pool resources (without the short-term pressure of
the pursuit of revenue dominating and destroying the commons-based
activity).*

I agree that this is a solid line of attack and would certainly generate
valuable information for all of us. Central to the OK mission is bridging
'open' and 'mainstream' culture and an understanding of those that are
actually doing it and how would be great.

I look forward to everyone's thoughts!

Suresh

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> More to consider:
>
> There is a perspective that comes from Game Theory (Axelrod, Ostrum,
> Hardin, John Holland and now also informs complex systems theory) and
> complex xystems modeling that lets us predict in many ways how both
> pooling of resources, and compensation systems might work in what you
> are calling "open enterprise".
>
> The main question you can ask is: what "game" do people realize they
> are "playing"? Those people that are operating under the belief that
> they can leverage common pool resources for limited, scarcity-based
> short term gain for a small percentage of  the overall people
> involved, are actually "losing" the "tragedy of the commons" "game".
> You can run actual agent based model simulations of this to confirm
> that any one agent operating this way will destroy the pool or commons
> over time. This suggests that if/where "open" tends to really equal
> "commons", that the ecology is a long term investment pay-off (not a
> short term quick payoff).  At times, you may also detect that some
> people within an "ecosystem" believe they are "playing" the "tit for
> tat iterated prisoner's dilemma" while the rest are operating in a
> commons paradigm. They may believe that everyone "says" they are
> participating in commons-based ways, but they all are really "playing"
> "IPD". These are worldviews/fundamental assumptions that constrain
> what people will be willing and ready to do now.
>
> Ostrum and some colleagues authored a book a few years ago worth
> looking at, titled "recognizing knowledge as a commons". This gives
> some clues about a framework for managing knolwedge as a commons.
>
> My opinion is that the best thing you could research now would be how
> existing projects successfully operate with a combination of revenue
> models and common pool resources (without the short-term pressure of
> the pursuit of revenue dominating and destroying the commons-based
> activity).
>
> RepRap and Arduino are two "mature" projects worth looking at in
> distributed manufacturing space, if you buy into the model I am laying
> down here. They have at least close to successful symbiosis (*not*
> "integration") of business and commons.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Matt Cooperrider
> > <mattcooperrider at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> As I've mentioned before, I have to produce a 50 page thesis paper for
> my MA
> >> at NYU.  My topic has always been, more or less, "open enterprise".
> >>
> >> I've made many attempts, but I always suffer from scope creep.  Perhaps
> if I
> >> am working on something that is needed and useful right now, I can stay
> >> focused.  Also, I've have never had access to so many people talking
> about
> >> open enterprise together in one space as I do now.
> >>
> >
> > There are multiple angles you could pursue, Matt.
> >
> > It's my opinion that we are at the stage now where people need
> > practical knowledge about succeeding as a commons-based networked
> > enterprise.
> >
> > There are still serious issues with basic assumptions about
> > compensation models, the value and worth of labor, and the assumptions
> > people have about the sustainability of gratis/free content online.
> >
> > There are approaches to so-called "open enterprise" that are really
> > just attempts at establishing and maintaining a digital form of
> > serfdom. The perception is that it is even cheaper now to become rich,
> > because speculators can divert the value and flow of other's labor
> > towards
> >
> > There are multiple widespread mis-perceptions about:
> >
> >
> > 1. How co-leverage the value in networks
> >
> > 2. The core motivations of people participating in networks
> >
> > 3, What people in networks *are* (are they people to build
> > relationships with based around activities and problems of mutual
> > interest, or are they resources to be used?)
> >
> > I've also got some material in
> >
> http://holocene.cc/wagn/Sustaining_online_communities_that_are_connected_to_open_enterprise
> >
> >
> >
> >> So, open question: what would be the most useful piece of specific,
> concrete
> >> research on open enterprise ecosystems that I could contribute right
> now?  I
> >> have until August.
> >>
> >> MC
> >>
> >> p.s. FF dudes, I'm looking at you 8-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Cooperrider, Consultant
> >> BLOG: http://mattcoop.com
> >> SITE: http://collabforge.com
> >> TWITTER: @mattcoop
> >> PHONE: 347.878.8277
> >> M.O.: http://notanemployee.net/
> >>
> >> --
> >> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
> >> To post to this group, send email to openkollab at googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Sam Rose
> > Forward Foundation
> > Social Synergy
> > Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> > Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> > skype: samuelrose
> > email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> > http://socialsynergyweb.com
> > http://forwardfound.org
> > 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
> Forward Foundation
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.com
> http://forwardfound.org
> 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
>
> --
> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
> To post to this group, send email to openkollab at googlegroups.com
>

-- 
Suresh Fernando
WEBSITE: http://radical-inclusion.com
WEBSITE: http://openkollab.com
FAN PAGE: http://www.facebook.com/openkollab.
BLOG: http://sureshfernando.wordpress.com
TWITTER: http://twitter.com/sureshf
FACEBOOK: facebook.com/suresh.fernando
604-889-8167
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100124/189ec03d/attachment.html>