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

Sat Sep 4 12:34:33 CEST 2010

the companioin concepts was suggested by alex rollin, and is just a
selection of the encyclopedia, which has become unwieldy ...

additional indexing such as you propose could only work with continuous
committment, and so far, we haven't found anybody to do such extra layer ..

however, I think the kind of logical/mathematical formulas such as the ones
you propose, would only appeal to a tiny minority ..

the encyclopedia of human potential of the union of intl associations has
such child/mother relationships embedded, but as I recall, these schemes are
not really used by users,

Michel

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:16 AM, mrc <eskerda at hacklaviva.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100904/38865cd3/attachment.html>