Sensorica really wants a reputation system. We don''t want to build one. An affiliate of Sensorica has been working on one for a few years and thinks he can get ready this year some time, so we're hoping to use his.

apologies for not being clear Bob. let me try once more: I would understand why an OVN would need a reputation system but not NRP. What I meant was as far as I see it, the reputation is being built in the NRP by doing the work, by adding labour and value in someones project or job to do. So what does your program do is opening up the labour process and make the labour value produced by individuals and collectives and added into one project or to the system, in the production process. which is the source of all the value created at the end. Hence it does allow all in the network to see who did what, added where, and got what in return. This I think is a major importance in what your are innovating here, it is about hacking the material base of classlessness, by making the material base of differentiation of contributions, distribution, and circulation observable and traceable, if not quantifying. In a framework like this, any labour done by any one can be seen and recognized, as well as exploitation at any level of realization of the outcome, and income. When you think what you are tracing here is the labour and the value it adds, then it can also be thought as money (as reputation) to be used for any exchanges I mean. Since the reputation emerges from the ones labour, which she or he gives, by caring, doings, making, or thinking, as a trustable social property, which is 'trust', base of reputation. I think using such trust as 'money', being the tool, which is itself a pure social relationship, frees market relationships from any alienation and fetishization. orsan

Beyond that, I am skeptical about reputation systems. I think they will be easily gamed and people will spend their time building reputations instead of anything useful. Like chasing twitter followers. But I do understand why people want them...

...

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks for the clarification Bob. I some how have growing feeling that the stage 2 is coming closer, hope you/we could make it soon.

ps. after the recent discussions on the currency issue, also external discussions i entered outside on the role of the repetitional systems, I suddenly started to think about possible use of the open value network, or more specifically NRP, also as an open reputation building system, in or through which the function of money can be embedded in the tool. Like using the labour value added in the production which is being traced via the tool you have been developing, directly as a trust based money to facilitate the exchanges within the network. Would this make sense to you and others, like if it is linked to fair.coin or fiat currencies with an interface like structure?

orsan

...

On 16 feb. 2015, at 14:07, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:

I just wanted to clarify that our goals (Mikorizal) are: 1) first, to figure out the form and behavior (model and logic) for an open value network operating system, which is not yet finished, and 2 then (in parallel), collaborate with other people to standardize the model in the format of Linked Open Data and break the model and logic into smaller components developed by different people. As that stage becomes workable, it will supercede our current software. That effort has begun here, but proceeds slowly: https://github.com/openvocab/ovn

We'll keep the current software alive as long as people are still using it and we are able to do so. But we really want stage 2.

We are old people, we can't do all that needs to be done, and we want to work ourselves out of programming jobs. And we don't want a product.

...

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote: I agree Anna, and also with Bob's and Tiberius' responses.

In the Commons Transition website and books now we have already sets of alternative putting concrete proposals for transition through policy changes, but also movement and polity building perspectives. These provide a good and solid base to start taking the discussions further, in order to develop existing practical and analytical visions provided. This should happen bottom up. And for this what is crucial is to ceate autonomous and horizontal spaces where grassroots inventors from different networks can work out together, with but independent from generalizing theorists, strategists, and funders. This is crucial to be able to go on inventing and adding value on top the provided visions of transition. So creative development of strategies can be developed through wiki like modifications, or forking that provide totally different alternatives. So either, as Tiberius suggest, integrating people and tools that would function and covering the points you raise Anna, or based on the insights provided building a new vision or practice is possible.

Again, what is really crucial in my humble opinion, is the fact that there has been intensifying convergences between many networks, ideas, research, practice and analyses, also between policy and action based approaches. This made individual and collective contributions merge to create an emerging picture of integrated networks of networks, in a way has the potential to grow over and dominate the existing mode of production.

This has been happening exactly in parallel to the intensified good and bad happenings, as in greece, Spain, and Syria/Iraq/Ukraine, Asia-pasific, Africa and cyberia, with the unfolding of the systemic crisis. The challenge is now to make this happen: to practically work on networking variety of alternative modes of associated production, which are addressing similar tools and dynamics, cultures and so on, in a way reaching specific social purposes and targets become possible. Thinking of how to integrate tools and networks of Sensorica, cic, faircoop, mikorizal, gnlu, edu-factory, schools of commons, social strike,..

As Tiberius said, not everything will become parts of a universal machine like system, but a live and complex living organism that is part of Gaia, or cosmos we are part of. We won't all use Mikroizal, but might chose to modularly integrate various aspects, like production, learning, coop exchange, p2p insurance, so on of various alternatives to each other... while some of these forms focus on individual and enterprise, when implementing tools to network, others will focus on workers, some coops, elderly, children, land, money... Still not sure if it would work..

Yet one thing is sure, form the history, that created Lenin's, Stalin's, and many other elements of what Bogdanov called the "IntermediaryIntelligentsia"

"As early as 1906, in the third volume of his seminal work. Empiriomonizm, Bogdanov had certainly admitted the possibility that "in certain conditions" the "ideologues" of society might themselves acquire the status of an "organizing class" which would rule over the masses. However, in other works published before 1917 he had asked whether under capitalism the intelligentsia might acquire such a status and his answer had been in the negative. At most, he acknowledged that in certain historical periods when relations between competing social classes were in a state of equilibrium the intelligentsia might assert itself as an independent social group,"above class,"and he cited the example of the liberal faction aroundLe National in France in the 1840s, that of the "Legal Populists" in Russia during the 1890s, and that of the "Liberationists"of the 1900s. For Bogdanov, as a rule, however: The intermediary intelligentsia groups of society work ideologically not for themselves but for others and so they can in no way act as a determining force in pursuing the cultural tasks of our time."

Based on the above insight, taken form Bogdanov, I think it is really crucial that the working people, peer producers, commoners, who has the practical and intellectual ability to unify their mental and manual work, strategic and practical creative and innovative skills to determine how to design and realize the transition will take place. That is why I believe it is crucial not only for intellectuals, even for the sake of ruling classes' survival, we emphasis verbally and action wise the importance of networks and classes being the creators and vanguards of their own present and future politics. That is why we need to give special care and attention to create enabling spaces, channels, and tools for further empowerment of these alternatives and every potential individual who is needed to join and and give a hand in such empowerment by empowering themselves.

Again as Tiberius calls, involvement of people like you, me, and all others in developing, designing, and implementing tools like Sensorica, faircoop, Mikroizal, GNLU, global square... is the thing. Any support from intermeridate intelligentsia, enabling ngos, civil society, partner state or other institutional perspectives are and can be really helpful to realize the transition, but as a secondary contribution. If we see the latter more important it means we already started to create possible future ruling classes.

Orsan

On 15 Feb 2015, at 15:41, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:

It is interesting to see the link between Sensorica as presented by Tiberius, and the article sent in by Francine Maestrum. As I understand it, Sensorica allows people to claim all the value they contribute, including adjustments for reputation, through a value equation, endorsed by all participants. Very appealing for those who have something to contribute, and offers an alternative to the capitalist economy which thrives on extracting surplus value.

Francine is wanting to provide for those who for whatever reason can't contribute as part of that innovative model of production. And perhaps we should ask - shouldn't that be part of the model? What happens in Sensorica when there is sickness or accidents? Child care? Elderly relatives? Need a holiday? Those with disabilities? Perhaps this was mentioned and I missed it. 'Fairness' is not as simple as an algorithm which rewards on the basis of contribution. Some may benefit If they remain fit and well. But it seems pretty precarious if there is no support to fall back on when they are not.

Calling something a commons doesn't just mean that something is available to all, it also means making sure that people have the ability to take advantage of that availability. In this new society we have to find a way to care for each other to ensure that we don't just reproduce a system which enables some to prosper, while others suffer.

Anna

On 13 Feb 2015, at 21:45, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks Bob!

We were discussing manual-mental labour division, thinkers and doers, economy and politics. I just want to recommend everyone to take time and look in to Mikorizal and watch the below video, from Tiberius of Sensorica.

http://mikorizal.org/groups.html

http://youtu.be/Ixgp8_B9g5A

Direction of possible fusion between open value networking, open coops, like fair.coop, multi stakeholder cooperatives and the unionism I have been promoting bears the potential of overcoming those divisions. we better get ready for the scaling up of unifying political-economies in form of polity as well. If Syriza can find a way to facilitate such transformation it has a chance. Podemos in Spain is closer, though both have some disadvantages. In case they can envisage and open a path to, some thing can be called, Internet of Emancipatory Everything we might have a chance to stand together before both big capitalist class or rising dark Internet of Everything as the latest stage of capitalism.

Orsan

_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour