[p2p-research] updated Business Models wiki section

Samuel Rose samuel.rose at gmail.com
Wed Jun 16 22:56:58 CEST 2010 

For me, is too late.

Myself and my partners Paul Hartzog and Rick Adler all agreed long ago
that we would refer to this as "Wealth Generating Ecologies", and have
been doing that extensively. Although, we do not expect others to
automatically adopt out language and ontologies etc.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Excellent points about sharing, Sam.  I had a brief discussion with
>> > Stefan
>> > Meretz today about the vocabulary used in describing commons based
>> > models.
>> >  I feel that this work around common characteristics of P2P systems can
>> > somehow help us highlight the 'per model' similarities and
>> > differentials.
>> > When you say that the unique aspect of each model is what can be shared
>> > I am
>> > in definite agreement, and add that the particular sharing is also
>> > indicative of that models particular relationship to one or more types
>> > of
>> > commons.
>> > In my earlier conversation with Stefan I was getting into semantics with
>> > the
>> > word 'business' in the phrase 'commons based business model'.
>>
>> It's funny that you mention this. In 2009 I started using the phrase
>> "Wealth generating ecology" in place of "Open Business Model" to try
>> and give a more effective description of what I am talking about with
>> "open business" or "commons-based business" models.
>>
> To my ear ecology is a great word but still too on the green side.  Don't
> take that as a criticism; I still can't find a better one, hence:
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Cooperative_Ecology_Project
>>
>> Although, I suppose one could argue that "Business" is not always a
>> pursuit of "wealth generation"....
>
> I keep thinking that business 'just' means a loose boundary around a set of
> one or more operations, but I know that is not a normalized definition.
>>
>> I still think this resembles across worldviews the core activity that
>> people are pursuing in relation to what most are referring to as
>> "open" or "commons based" business models.
>
> I agree.  I think it is a bit of sabotage to fork the business namespace
> until we can all discuss, together, that we are building something that is
> obviously Not a business and is clearly something else.  Perhaps that is
> what Stefan was trying to say.  The fighter in me wants to say that what
> most people call business is exploitation, and that this is an inappropriate
> use of the word 'business.'  ;)
> A
>>
>> >I wouldn't
>> > say that the workd 'business is necessarily particular helpful in
>> > describing
>> > these operations, or that it is one of these important supporting
>> > concepts,
>> > and yet our wiki doesn't yet have a way of helping folks to make a
>> > connection between network rules, or protocol, and business.  I am
>> > hoping
>> > that our efforts on the wiki will help to either find another word for
>> > business or reclaim it while showing the work of that reclamation as
>> > open to
>> > comment, whether those words are protocol, network rules, or something
>> > else.
>> > I'm hoping that publishing his recent 'taxonomy of goods' to the wiki
>> > will
>> > also help to bring out some of the commonalities and differences between
>> > models at the level of 'commons-based'-whatever- in an effort to further
>> > elaborate on these underlying concepts as support structures that are
>> > simply
>> > remixed or emphasized in various ways when building up a model.
>> > A note on process; I am collecting pages that explore the discussion
>> > around
>> > classification of goods in the Thing Commons category.  This is related
>> > to
>> > this discussion of concepts because, in one way of seeing it, each of
>> > the
>> > Five Commons from the FF model is a distinct emphasis on or more
>> > concepts,
>> > as opposed to and without diminishing, the others.
>> >  http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Thing_Commons
>> > Alex
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Michel Bauwens
>> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks to Alex for starting this section,
>> >> > http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Business_Models
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > This category is for P2P business models. Articles should emphasize
>> >> > P2P
>> >> > dynamics.
>> >> >
>> >> > Contents
>> >>
>> >> This is cool.
>> >>
>> >> I was tracking this about 3-4 years ago with "Open Business Models
>> >> Wiki", but I would readily agree P2P wiki is a better home.
>> >>
>> >> For whatever it is worth, my recent thinking about business models
>> >> with the word "Open" in them is this:
>> >>
>> >> Business models that employ the word "Open" are really incomplete if
>> >> they are solely focused on what happens with revenue (even if that
>> >> focus is related to sharing of revenue).
>> >>
>> >> The part of the model that is unique to each business entity or group
>> >> is: "what is shared?"
>> >>
>> >> Based on the questions "what is shared?", or "what can be shared?" the
>> >> business model can evolve per business to include many types of
>> >> sharing. This is mostly limited to what the participants are *willing*
>> >> to share together as a group.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the p2presearch mailing list