[p2p-research] [rant] p2p values for projects

[mrc]

Creating a p2p values (was:Companion concepts?) page makes sense? or is
just redundant on an hipothetic better place like "P2P metrics#Common
values found" ?

I'd like also to read the /Intention and /Depth pages(they are not), which
if they have some specific p2p personality further than the flat network
one (..i don't know..), i'll directly sugest to be part of the values - c
concepts.

if there are top c. concepts-values like the typical "sustainable" one,
intention and depth could be ok just mentioning they are dependant
children of the top ones...  for less needing of adjectivizing them, (in
case?)..
,

i guess i'm (mis)researching for "Distributed as in p2pf (or p2pfv or p2p
v)"... for getting bits or all of it for Shareful as in x.


---
(Thinking on a posible case for adding a value or not or which)
If seeing a protocol (as in 'human' convention, i.e.: project's terms of
contributing) just an axiomatic approach?
If so, protocol quality is the less axiomatic it is defined? and the most
complying aproach made is another type of quality or a complementary part
of the 'whole' one? do they both require a minimum, so which?


i. e. distributed(?) project that need many meetings:
For a group the most need of 'a'(centralized!) meeting beyond just for
having fun, the less usable it is.
so: High usability(or other) or open-accesible is enough for p2pv?



=See also=
shareful project for producing shareful goods
shareful project for producing shareable goods
shareable project for producing shareable goods (group property, i don't
mind)
(shareable) project for producing shareful goods (mmm... which
cases-reasons for not being shareful project instead... mmm...)



i wonder whether i could save the first 'shareful' for something like: p2p
project for producing shareful goods

actually i use the not enough:
"free project" is for producing shareable and shareful goods

not enough because there's the:
(peer production=*) shareful (...=-and-or p2p...) project for producing
shareful goods.
which needs a specific term for this type of "free project".

(
*iff:
*p2p relations within a p2p network (p production?)
p2p relations within a network (p property?)
relations within a p2p network (p gov?)
)


Because projects is a better thing than groups for avoiding flatland
'traps'. Projects is a promise of a future offer and shareful is an offer,
so shareful project will not make a difference between a promise of a
goods' offer and a goods' offer, which can lead to conflict.


Buut-So: "p2p project for producing shareful", or "p2p shareful production
(project)" or "peer shareful production (project)" is more acurate but
less short and intuitive than "shareful project" or redefining "free
project" erasing "shareable" and keeping just the "shareful production"
bit.

as far as i know, peer production can be shareable and not
shareful(=universally offered) so "peer production(, economy, etc.)
project" doesn't fit these needs.


did you arive reading up to here?..... wow!.. any hint? :)



> Hi,
> please have a look at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens/P2P-Metrics and also
http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Metrics
> I do not follow social network analysis very closely because I
personally
> think it has issues of reductionism ..
> Peer to peer should not be confounded with 'flat' network analysis, because
> peers have depth and intention ...
> though of course, a self-aware reductionist scientific exercise does
have
> value in illuminating some aspect or other, but scientism often lurks
behind
> the science,
> so the relation of sociometry with p2p is loose and 'instrumental' it is
normal that strategic forces will try to instrumentalize human
relationality in one way or another, but, flatland and measurable peer
relations resemble more non-intentional and non-human dynamics,
> Michel
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:51 PM, mrc <eskerda at hacklaviva.net> wrote:
>> heey, i'm lost in a research, so maybe i'm just trolling..... please asist
>> this lammer if u can, thanx.
>> what's the relation of this with p2p.?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociometry
>> "As the ...science of group organization, it attacks the problem not from
>> the outer structure of the group, the group surface, but from the inner
structure."
>> So as the rest of "social things", it depends lots on the real
>> parameters-values the group has choosen to give points to. however:
distributed sociometry is ever posible? sociometric points are always
finite within a group? are roles finite too? should roles be mainly
offered by just a member of the group  ?
>> (for example: the queers probably don't like sociometry? )
>> the quantity and quality of traffic... on a-some ('fair') human
(tending
>> to) p2p network, how is that ammount of P2Pism quantified and
qualified?
>> can you direct me to some measurers?
>> i think i heard about unitarization needed for p2p, so.. p2pmetrics makes
>> any sense.. ?
>> sorry about this if no sense at all... i'll find 'it' out somehow else....
>> :p
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> --
> 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