[P2P-F] a new type of platform?

[Michel Bauwens]

I'm really interested in a 'constructive critique' of OSE ...

here is some of my own:

- first of all, Nicholas refers to the authoritarian tendencies ... as I see
it, this was certainly a problem in the beginning, when people expected OSE
to work as as a voluntary open source program, which I think it isn't. It's
a almost fully thought out vision from marcin, and the project is a vehicle
to bring that to fruition. It's like working for Avatar for Cameron, you
fully expect to be ordered around. What was not clear perhaps was this
underlying social contract, hence the early problem.  However, it seems
quite clear that this issue has been resolved, i.e. new volunteers are clear
about this expectation, and, that there is also funding, making this type of
relationship clearer as well. Nevertheless, it seems that Marcin has been
successfull in attracting a new layer of volunteers and that they are happy
with the level of participation they can bring, though it is true that the
ones I know are 'remote participants' .. For me, the Marcin approach is
legitimate, there needs to be place in the world for 'genial individuals'
who have a capacity to mobilize people and realize a vision. The key is that
you are aware of the implicit or explicit social contract.

- I think the project has many merits, but it is also a limited one. It is a
vision of an autonomous village, but doesn't answer more global social
concerns like for example the commodity ecology of Mark Whitaker does. But
of course, it shouldn't. I.e. there must be room for systemic approaches
that touch communities as a whole, and core initiatives like Marcin, which
are meant to seed the broader environment with strong local subcommunities
with alternative logics, and of course, the latter's availability will
influence the former.

Now, this is my provisional critique, but I don't really see the
totalitarian aspects.

They're work is interoperable and open standard, so as I see it, others can
work on it, create variations, etc ...

Michel

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Karl Robillard <krobillard at san.rr.com>wrote:

> On Monday, July 18, 2011 09:00:40 pm Nicholas Roberts wrote:
> > personally I think that while the OSE project is idealistic and
> technically
> > interesting, its also totalitarian, naive and a dangerous distraction
> from
> > existing social systems, craft movements and appropriate technology
> >
> > its a kind of utopian new age totalitarianism, with a digital fabrication
> > and software development festish... if you cant model it, design it, it
> > doesnt exist
>
> Everything in our world has a structural design.  Our bodies, our machines,
> our systems of production, our forms of government, and our environment.
>  Open
> source is about the absolute freedom to communicate and modify designs.
> This
> empowers people to understand, repair, replicate and customize the
> structures
> around them.  What's your beef against understanding the world?
>
> We live in the information age.  Software isn't a fetish, it's just the way
> we
> manipulate information.  Our new information tools are certainly
> revolutionary, but I don't see anything utopian about them.
>
>
> > real-life just doesn't work like that, you might be able to insulate
> > yourself from that if you've got a stream of volunteers, a large number
> of
> > donors etc, but really it only works for those principals at the core
>
> Open source works for whoever wants to take advantage of it.  What you said
> could be said about any human endeavor.
>
>  "Super-stardom only works for artists who can attract enough fans!"
>  "Free markets only work for capitalists who can sell to enough customers!"
>  "Representative democracy only works for voters who can get their
> candidates
> elected!" (Heh... and not even then)
>
>
> > the problem isn't a design problem, it's a social and political one
>
> I agree, where the social problem happens to be that the designs for all
> the
> products we use and the institutions we must engage with are not open and
> easily modified.  Ha!  I take that back, the problem is very much a design
> problem - a problem of social design.  To advocate that people ought not
> spend
> time learning about the structure of things and communicating this
> knowledge
> to others is totalitarian.
>
>
> -Karl
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>



-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110719/74b963cd/attachment.htm