a short response to queries about the p2p'f workings in WSF
Kevin may yet respond to Orsan queries and the suspicions that the p2p-f is setting the agenda in the WSF and elswhere. My understanding of the events at the WSF is that they were organized by a large team of commoners from different countries but under the impulse originally of Kevin and Elizabetta, who took a personal initiative on this. The process was done entirely openly on hackpads and mailings lists with everyone welcome to contribute which was in the end several dozen people who did a really great job. My understanding is that Orsan did not wish to contribute to these efforts, which was entirely his decision. Kevin asked us to use our server to open a mailing list to help this project. This does not mean that these events were orchestrated in any particular way by the P2P Foundation, though various sympathizers of our work, such as Kevin, will have contributed a lot of time and effort to make it happen, along with many others from other organizations as well as non-affiliated. But here is my take, so that people may understand better how we function in that regard. The questions from Orsan seem to be predicated on a in my view old-fashioned view of conspirational hierarchical organizations that does not reflect our practice. I very emphatically want to declare that there was not a single meeting as p2p-f in which any decisions were made outside of that process on the hackpad and mailing list, and outside of the free dialogue of all the contributors. I was personally not involved at all except for a requested intervention on coops which I did not fullfil for health reasons. so here is a one paragraph summary explanation: "It is important to realize that the p2p-f is an organized network and not a NGO (the 'stichting' is just a legal structure to be able to accept research grants etc ..). As a network , there is no membership but people can self-declare themselves symphatizers and as long as they stay in the broad framework of pluralistic support for p2p and the commons, there will be no objection to it (just as they did with occupy for example). So individuals in our network are free to declare their affiliation to the p2p-f in personal capacity. They may call themselves members or contributors, but there is no formal membership. This does not mean they represent the whole of the network. It also means they are not 'dispatched' by the P2P-F with a specific agenda. In addition, because of the accrued prestige of our work for a decade, we are often asked to add our name to the organizational rosters and sponsors of an event. This is often of mutual benefit and so readily accepted. Here also, it does not mean that the P2P Foundation is necessarily a co-organizer on the ground, though symphatizes may have contributed and collaborated to the event in different fashions. Today, the core group of the p2p-f consists of 6 individuals operating on a shoestring budget, and mostly they are responsible for their own income. We intend at some point to function in a more organizational way but this is still a very emergent practice so far. Most of the time, we operate as a service organization and act upon invitation and requests, this means we are sure that what we are doing is useful for the social movement we support, since they directly reflect their expressed needs." I hope this makes sense, Michel -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
Michel, This is the outcome of that collaborative effort on the hackpad, of which production professional individuals, which means, whose work in this field in one or another way paid by one or other sources. As for the contributions they made is compensated, according to your own definition the outcome not be peer produced commons [space or politics]: http://wiki.remixthecommons.org/images/Final_Program_Commons_Space.pdf As you can see P2P-f is amongst the organizers and at the end there is the logo of Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation, whose CEO is also on this list and head of Edge funders coalition; which were also organizing commons related event at the WSF. As you declared before this is a 'radical funders' coalition who wish to change the world in a radical way; so commons bade peer production can replace the world they live in; property relations their lives and sociality depends on. And you are/were certain before that they have given to you full autonomy; so can you confirm that in this initiative of 'commons space' Kevin acted with full autonomy from you and P2p foundation; as Elisabetta from Transform; so that collective efforts that could be made in a totally an open and independent from the represented organizations and their funder; in other word any outcome including any radical vision, that would oppose or mismatch with the political properties and policy agenda of the Leopold Mayer and Edge funders' vision or vision of other organizations took part in the production of a wsf agenda for the Commons and commons transition? Orsan
On 15 Aug 2016, at 10:20, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin may yet respond to Orsan queries and the suspicions that the p2p-f is setting the agenda in the WSF and elswhere.
My understanding of the events at the WSF is that they were organized by a large team of commoners from different countries but under the impulse originally of Kevin and Elizabetta, who took a personal initiative on this.
The process was done entirely openly on hackpads and mailings lists with everyone welcome to contribute which was in the end several dozen people who did a really great job. My understanding is that Orsan did not wish to contribute to these efforts, which was entirely his decision. Kevin asked us to use our server to open a mailing list to help this project. This does not mean that these events were orchestrated in any particular way by the P2P Foundation, though various sympathizers of our work, such as Kevin, will have contributed a lot of time and effort to make it happen, along with many others from other organizations as well as non-affiliated.
But here is my take, so that people may understand better how we function in that regard. The questions from Orsan seem to be predicated on a in my view old-fashioned view of conspirational hierarchical organizations that does not reflect our practice.
I very emphatically want to declare that there was not a single meeting as p2p-f in which any decisions were made outside of that process on the hackpad and mailing list, and outside of the free dialogue of all the contributors. I was personally not involved at all except for a requested intervention on coops which I did not fullfil for health reasons.
so here is a one paragraph summary explanation:
"It is important to realize that the p2p-f is an organized network and not a NGO (the 'stichting' is just a legal structure to be able to accept research grants etc ..). As a network , there is no membership but people can self-declare themselves symphatizers and as long as they stay in the broad framework of pluralistic support for p2p and the commons, there will be no objection to it (just as they did with occupy for example). So individuals in our network are free to declare their affiliation to the p2p-f in personal capacity. They may call themselves members or contributors, but there is no formal membership. This does not mean they represent the whole of the network. It also means they are not 'dispatched' by the P2P-F with a specific agenda. In addition, because of the accrued prestige of our work for a decade, we are often asked to add our name to the organizational rosters and sponsors of an event. This is often of mutual benefit and so readily accepted. Here also, it does not mean that the P2P Foundation is necessarily a co-organizer on the ground, though symphatizes may have contributed and collaborated to the event in different fashions. Today, the core group of the p2p-f consists of 6 individuals operating on a shoestring budget, and mostly they are responsible for their own income. We intend at some point to function in a more organizational way but this is still a very emergent practice so far. Most of the time, we operate as a service organization and act upon invitation and requests, this means we are sure that what we are doing is useful for the social movement we support, since they directly reflect their expressed needs."
I hope this makes sense,
Michel
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
This is the outcome of that collaborative effort on the hackpad, of which production professional individuals, which means, whose work in this field in one or another way paid by one or other sources. As for the contributions they made is compensated, according to your own definition the outcome not be peer produced commons [space or politics]: http://wiki.remixthecommons.org/images/Final_Program_Commons_Space.pdf
absolutely incorrect, the hackpad was open to anyone, so was the list ... if you didn't participate, it's because you didn't want to, nobody stopped you
As you can see P2P-f is amongst the organizers and at the end there is the logo of Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation, whose CEO is also on this list and head of Edge funders coalition; which were also organizing commons related event at the WSF. As you declared before this is a 'radical funders' coalition who wish to change the world in a radical way; so commons bade peer production can replace the world they live in; property relations their lives and sociality depends on. And you are/were certain before that they have given to you full autonomy; so can you confirm that in this initiative of 'commons space' Kevin acted with full autonomy from you and P2p foundation; as Elisabetta from Transform; so that collective efforts that could be made in a totally an open and independent from the represented organizations and their funder; in other word any outcome including any radical vision, that would oppose or mismatch with the political properties and policy agenda of the Leopold Mayer and Edge funders' vision or vision of other organizations took part in the production of a wsf agenda for the Commons and commons transition?
up to you to try it Orsan, if you had contributed with your radical agenda, you would have known the answer to your question ... obviously, all funders and all support organisations in general, have their own generic values ... but these limits are there to be tested by active individuals ; but whether your support comes from p2p contributors, active memberships, state or private or philanthropic funding, there will always be friction between any individual's desires and collective realities ... Michel
Orsan
On 15 Aug 2016, at 10:20, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin may yet respond to Orsan queries and the suspicions that the p2p-f is setting the agenda in the WSF and elswhere.
My understanding of the events at the WSF is that they were organized by a large team of commoners from different countries but under the impulse originally of Kevin and Elizabetta, who took a personal initiative on this.
The process was done entirely openly on hackpads and mailings lists with everyone welcome to contribute which was in the end several dozen people who did a really great job. My understanding is that Orsan did not wish to contribute to these efforts, which was entirely his decision. Kevin asked us to use our server to open a mailing list to help this project. This does not mean that these events were orchestrated in any particular way by the P2P Foundation, though various sympathizers of our work, such as Kevin, will have contributed a lot of time and effort to make it happen, along with many others from other organizations as well as non-affiliated.
But here is my take, so that people may understand better how we function in that regard. The questions from Orsan seem to be predicated on a in my view old-fashioned view of conspirational hierarchical organizations that does not reflect our practice.
I very emphatically want to declare that there was not a single meeting as p2p-f in which any decisions were made outside of that process on the hackpad and mailing list, and outside of the free dialogue of all the contributors. I was personally not involved at all except for a requested intervention on coops which I did not fullfil for health reasons.
so here is a one paragraph summary explanation:
"It is important to realize that the p2p-f is an organized network and not a NGO (the 'stichting' is just a legal structure to be able to accept research grants etc ..). As a network , there is no membership but people can self-declare themselves symphatizers and as long as they stay in the broad framework of pluralistic support for p2p and the commons, there will be no objection to it (just as they did with occupy for example). So individuals in our network are free to declare their affiliation to the p2p-f in personal capacity. They may call themselves members or contributors, but there is no formal membership. This does not mean they represent the whole of the network. It also means they are not 'dispatched' by the P2P-F with a specific agenda. In addition, because of the accrued prestige of our work for a decade, we are often asked to add our name to the organizational rosters and sponsors of an event. This is often of mutual benefit and so readily accepted. Here also, it does not mean that the P2P Foundation is necessarily a co-organizer on the ground, though symphatizes may have contributed and collaborated to the event in different fashions. Today, the core group of the p2p-f consists of 6 individuals operating on a shoestring budget, and mostly they are responsible for their own income. We intend at some point to function in a more organizational way but this is still a very emergent practice so far. Most of the time, we operate as a service organization and act upon invitation and requests, this means we are sure that what we are doing is useful for the social movement we support, since they directly reflect their expressed needs."
I hope this makes sense,
Michel
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
I recommend reading this piece by Taleb: https://medium.com/@nntaled/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the... It is almost funny, if he weren't talking about very serious matters. He explains, for instance, the conditions under which an persistent, intolerant minority can dictate the norms of society. Very relevant to the exchanges going on. Roberto On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:20:21 +0700 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin may yet respond to Orsan queries and the suspicions that the p2p-f is setting the agenda in the WSF and elswhere.
My understanding of the events at the WSF is that they were organized by a large team of commoners from different countries but under the impulse originally of Kevin and Elizabetta, who took a personal initiative on this.
The process was done entirely openly on hackpads and mailings lists with everyone welcome to contribute which was in the end several dozen people who did a really great job. My understanding is that Orsan did not wish to contribute to these efforts, which was entirely his decision. Kevin asked us to use our server to open a mailing list to help this project. This does not mean that these events were orchestrated in any particular way by the P2P Foundation, though various sympathizers of our work, such as Kevin, will have contributed a lot of time and effort to make it happen, along with many others from other organizations as well as non-affiliated.
But here is my take, so that people may understand better how we function in that regard. The questions from Orsan seem to be predicated on a in my view old-fashioned view of conspirational hierarchical organizations that does not reflect our practice.
I very emphatically want to declare that there was not a single meeting as p2p-f in which any decisions were made outside of that process on the hackpad and mailing list, and outside of the free dialogue of all the contributors. I was personally not involved at all except for a requested intervention on coops which I did not fullfil for health reasons.
so here is a one paragraph summary explanation:
"It is important to realize that the p2p-f is an organized network and not a NGO (the 'stichting' is just a legal structure to be able to accept research grants etc ..). As a network , there is no membership but people can self-declare themselves symphatizers and as long as they stay in the broad framework of pluralistic support for p2p and the commons, there will be no objection to it (just as they did with occupy for example). So individuals in our network are free to declare their affiliation to the p2p-f in personal capacity. They may call themselves members or contributors, but there is no formal membership. This does not mean they represent the whole of the network. It also means they are not 'dispatched' by the P2P-F with a specific agenda. In addition, because of the accrued prestige of our work for a decade, we are often asked to add our name to the organizational rosters and sponsors of an event. This is often of mutual benefit and so readily accepted. Here also, it does not mean that the P2P Foundation is necessarily a co-organizer on the ground, though symphatizes may have contributed and collaborated to the event in different fashions. Today, the core group of the p2p-f consists of 6 individuals operating on a shoestring budget, and mostly they are responsible for their own income. We intend at some point to function in a more organizational way but this is still a very emergent practice so far. Most of the time, we operate as a service organization and act upon invitation and requests, this means we are sure that what we are doing is useful for the social movement we support, since they directly reflect their expressed needs."
I hope this makes sense,
Michel
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
Indeed a good observation. But century ago in Tektology, Alexander Bogdanov, pioneer in systems and complex systems analysis, described this as 'Low of Minimum', in relation to 'positive and negative selection'. I recommend the book, in case you didn't read yet. Orsan
On 16 Aug 2016, at 04:44, Roberto Verzola <[email protected]> wrote:
I recommend reading this piece by Taleb:
https://medium.com/@nntaled/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the...
It is almost funny, if he weren't talking about very serious matters. He explains, for instance, the conditions under which an persistent, intolerant minority can dictate the norms of society. Very relevant to the exchanges going on.
Roberto
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:20:21 +0700 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin may yet respond to Orsan queries and the suspicions that the p2p-f is setting the agenda in the WSF and elswhere.
My understanding of the events at the WSF is that they were organized by a large team of commoners from different countries but under the impulse originally of Kevin and Elizabetta, who took a personal initiative on this.
The process was done entirely openly on hackpads and mailings lists with everyone welcome to contribute which was in the end several dozen people who did a really great job. My understanding is that Orsan did not wish to contribute to these efforts, which was entirely his decision. Kevin asked us to use our server to open a mailing list to help this project. This does not mean that these events were orchestrated in any particular way by the P2P Foundation, though various sympathizers of our work, such as Kevin, will have contributed a lot of time and effort to make it happen, along with many others from other organizations as well as non-affiliated.
But here is my take, so that people may understand better how we function in that regard. The questions from Orsan seem to be predicated on a in my view old-fashioned view of conspirational hierarchical organizations that does not reflect our practice.
I very emphatically want to declare that there was not a single meeting as p2p-f in which any decisions were made outside of that process on the hackpad and mailing list, and outside of the free dialogue of all the contributors. I was personally not involved at all except for a requested intervention on coops which I did not fullfil for health reasons.
so here is a one paragraph summary explanation:
"It is important to realize that the p2p-f is an organized network and not a NGO (the 'stichting' is just a legal structure to be able to accept research grants etc ..). As a network , there is no membership but people can self-declare themselves symphatizers and as long as they stay in the broad framework of pluralistic support for p2p and the commons, there will be no objection to it (just as they did with occupy for example). So individuals in our network are free to declare their affiliation to the p2p-f in personal capacity. They may call themselves members or contributors, but there is no formal membership. This does not mean they represent the whole of the network. It also means they are not 'dispatched' by the P2P-F with a specific agenda. In addition, because of the accrued prestige of our work for a decade, we are often asked to add our name to the organizational rosters and sponsors of an event. This is often of mutual benefit and so readily accepted. Here also, it does not mean that the P2P Foundation is necessarily a co-organizer on the ground, though symphatizes may have contributed and collaborated to the event in different fashions. Today, the core group of the p2p-f consists of 6 individuals operating on a shoestring budget, and mostly they are responsible for their own income. We intend at some point to function in a more organizational way but this is still a very emergent practice so far. Most of the time, we operate as a service organization and act upon invitation and requests, this means we are sure that what we are doing is useful for the social movement we support, since they directly reflect their expressed needs."
I hope this makes sense,
Michel
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
participants (3)
-
Michel Bauwens -
Orsan Senalp -
Roberto Verzola