[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Samuel Rose]

Sam wrote:
I personally define "P2P" to mean this:


On the scale of an individual person: this person has full access to,
and control over who, what, when, why and how they participate.

However, there are limits to what that person can do as an individual
with this access. Inevitably, that person, no matter *what* their
fundamental assumptions about solving problems of existence may be,
discovers they *must* connect in some ways *with* other people to
sustain any advantage they gain from this access and control.

What do you all think about that?

(Please refrain from replying to me off list. Your replies of any type
are more useful to everyone in public. Thanks.)

Ryan replies

I would first note the irony (given the topic) of your last line.

With regard to your definition, the first sentence is inherently not P2P, so
it is a constraint on P2P.  It seems odd to lead with it.  Overall, your
definition could describe a market economy, or am I reading it wrong?

Sam replies: first line could be a constraint. In he first line I am saying
that an individual has access and freedom.

I then struggle with how you mean "inevitably" as if it is a given.  P2P is
voluntary.  What part is inevitable and why?

Sam replies: It is voluntary. Another way to say it: There tends to be a
ceiling for how far an individual can go with operating alone, using mediums
that are "P2P" in nature.

I would myself argue that p2p has to start with some notion of what
constitutes a peer.  Most of it is acknowledgment of the rights and
privileges of that counter-party.

Sam replies: I find in practice that many, many, many people start out
alone, or in exclusive groups with no concept of what a "peer" constitutes.
They see a few dimensions of the capabilities of the medium, then discover
later what a "peer" constitutes for them. Originally, it might have meant
"customer" or "website viewer" etc (a role). Over time, this can change to
"community member", "collaborator" etc.  In the end, I would agree with you,
that p2p starts with a notion of what constitutes p2p.  My point is that no
matter what they operating worldview of the person is, there are affordances
for control on the individual scale, but limits as to how those mediums can
be leveraged by individuals. My statement that you were replying to probably
not a good generic definition of "p2p" but has been valuable for me and the
people I work with.

I don't mean to be excessively critical, but simply trying to be clear in
critique.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100310/af71c040/attachment-0001.html>