Building the Agenda

Workspaces Hatchery
, , ,
1

Step One: Articulating our assumptions and inviting others to do the same

Below is the list we started building during our first skype call. Feel free to add your own!

A1. There is lack of cooperation between different people, groups, and organisations building pieces we need for a decentralised future.

A2. People don’t know what network topologies are. (I – Alberto – don’t understand why this is here and who you mean by “people”)

A3. There is a need to make projects that answer to common needs (like attractive alternatives to google docs, or skype that work for mainstream users).

A4. Most value is in small scale regime open source projects (need examples to substantiate the claim), and they are missing something to draw engagement from developers and users… incentives are missing.

A5. Most support goes to large scale projects like Linux or Firefox.

A6. Large open source projects live in a different world with large scale dynamics from most small open source projects.

A7. Physical infrastructure for peer production (e.g. given was Fablabs) is underfunded.

A8. Very few understand what peer production is.

A9. Physical infrastructure is needed to support work on open source projects.

A10. Big companies are becoming more inefficient because you no longer need scale for production, so they are losing jobs.

A11. Small companies (and projects) is where jobs are being produced.

Step two: collaboratively investigating whether our assumptions are valid

Any suggestions for how we rigorously test our assumptions? Assuming we have no other resources than our brains, our friends and a couple of social media accounts?

2 Likes
2

Excellent idea!

Let me know how I can support it.

BTW, have you noticed that there are two groups of the same name? The second on is here: https://edgeryders.eu/en/your-agenda-0

3

Thanks, deleted it

there was a lag and I didnt see that it actually was made.

4

A2. People don’t know what network topologies are.

Do we mean by that that networks are not legible?

Open networks are not legible and this is a very important problem that I have been observing and tackling for the past year. Open networks are dynamic, fluid, their structure shifts, people come and go… During OuiShare Fest 2014 I spoke to a lot of people engaged in open networks. It’s a widespread pattern. I am contemplating high tech as well as low tech solutions. We are already implementing some within SENSORICA.

Low tech - Make the role of guide more visible and attach more incentives to it. A guide is someone who offers orientation to new comers.

Low tech - create a dynamic signaling system, one that help navigate in a shifting environment.

5

Making open networks legible

@TiberiusB, have you seen this?

The openness of the network is apparent as you operate the “time machine” (the horizontal slider at the top" and you see new nodes and new connections coming alive.

6

I like the tool, it’s a good start, but we need a lot more. These tools need to answer very precise questions. For example: what is the most active project, where can I use my skills in electronics design, who is the most trusted individual in that project, who has this skill, how risky is this project, what is the project with the highest potential, what is the level of synergy between this and that project, what can I do now, who can teach me something, etc. etc.

You can understand what’s needed by observing newcomers to an open space. They get excited about the prospect of contributing to projects, try to understand what to do and how to do it, get lost and confused and if nothing comes to orient them, they get frustrated or lose their focus and quit. They need to know where to find what they need, how to add to what’s already there, how to operate, how to organize stuff, who to speak to if they need something, how to communicate…

7

A1. There is lack of cooperation between different people …

To the first approximation, we can say that this is always the case. But in reality the level of coordination changes with circumstances over time. We can’t speak in general because we are talking about a vast development site. But I can mention something about my domain, the narrow area in which I am most active, which might give you an idea about the dynamics in other areas.

In commons-based peer production we are transitioning from a network/community development phase to a network of networks phase. Until now, different groups were formed to experiment with peer production. The focus was at the group level. Some exchange and crosspollination happened through social media, but most of the activity was enclosed within these networks/communities. This is very normal during the phase of emergence, where there is a proliferation of models, people try different things, there is no recipe, no blueprint, it’s trial and error, mostly error and learning… This was the time when we built fablabs, makerspaces, co-working spaces, local agriculture, open source hardware communities, DIY communities, etc.

We are not out of this phase of emergence. We can’t say that we now have a few stable models. But in parallel with this development I am observing something new. These networks/communities are realizing that in order to increase their economic strength, in order to become resilient, they need to interface more strongly with each other. A new economy is precipitating, different and complementary peer production networks/communities are coming together into an ecosystem. The attention starts to shift to the network of networks level. With this movement we see the need for collaboration at the infrastructure level, in order to make these networks interoperable at the network of networks level. So there is an intensification in collaboration and coordination among different groups involved in infrastructure development.

​More concretely, we have SENSORICA, Valeureux/Wezer, Enspiral and others sharing mailing lists and meeting and coordinating their work. This is real.

NOTE: I am using the network/community dual concept because there are two schools of thought that don’t always agree. Some peer production projects are set up as communities, which are heavier on culture, identity, rituals, sense of belonging, etc. Others are set up as loosely affiliated networks with less pressure to conform or identify with something. I think that there is a need for both, in different contexts. For example, open source hardware development happens within loosely affiliated networks. Local agriculture initiatives tend to be more community oriented. A fablab is also seen and run as a community. These two peer production settings are very different, require different tools, different governance, etc. But people don’t always make the distinction and often call online open source hardware projects, communities.

2 Likes
8

A comment about jobs and economic development - ref A10 and A11

The problem that we face is how to insert open source and peer production in the political debate?

In times of change, when we transition from one paradigm to another one, it is hard to speak about the new stuff. First, because people don’t understand the language, or don’t see it, or don’t see the importance. One can say that this is curable by education. But there might also be something else, which is even more problematic.

When one economic system transitions into another one the metrics used to evaluate economic performance or value in the first system cease to work in the new one.

It has been demonstrated that open source destroys value in capitalism, because it creates products that can be distributed at a very low price, because the commercialization of these products cannot be controlled using intellectual property, no monopoly is possible, and because open source innovation is very rapid and corporations cannot keep up with it. Classical businesses are put out of business when open source products invade their markets. This means loss of jobs, which is bad news if you look at it from the perspective of the old economic paradigm. How can a politician advocate open source when he must also admit that it contributes to job loss? The reality is that in parallel we have more and more freelance work and the emergence of peer production. New work opportunities are created, with the possibility to be financially rewarded, but these are not jobs, and no one knows how they balance each other, if we have a net gain or a net loss.  This is not the type of stuff a politician can easily put in one phrase to mesmerize everyone.

So how can we frame the debate. How can we convince people to make a risky choice, to pick a new system that has not been proven yet, but that has the characteristic to accelerate the demise of the old system, which still feeds them? Tough choice to make… The risky alternative becomes attractive only if we are at on edge of the precipice. That’s why only the Greek government is considering peer production.

1 Like
9

Tough choice

This is the crux of the matter, is it not?

In a European context, I have become convinced (after David Lane and others) that anything that involves loss of jobs and GDP is unsellable, even if it comes with more satisfaction of human needs. If you, like me, believe this, the choice becomes:

  1. We downplay the paradigm shift stuff to concentrate on the solution of specific problems at hand, like the community provision of certain health and social care services. In economic terms, we focus on micro and sectorial and ignore the macro. In the European institutional space, this is called "social innovation" and is highly attractive.
  2. We tell the room that the paradigm is broken and it has to go.

But if it is so, the choice is obvious. There is no way a meeting headed by the European Commission can conclude that the European social model based on full employment, trade unionization, private capitalism and hierarchy is broken. We would be wasting everyone’s time and create a lot of frustration. So, we do 1. We admit we don’t know about the long term macro consequences of anything: not our department, we are just social innovators. We do believe that non-hierarchical interaction tends to free up, perhaps even foster, entrepreneurship and initiative (“just look at the smart people in the room!”). From that, only good can come.

Makes sense, @TiberiusB? Everybody?

10

“anything that involves loss of jobs and GDP is unsellable”

That may be true in words, but in fact the official european policy since 2010, austerity in short, involves loss of jobs and GDP(or, at least, less GDP growth), and comes with less satisfaction of human needs. I can elaborate if needed. Any fundamental analysis of the situation must include this pervasive disjunction between words, acts and results, and why it persists.

11

Nope :slight_smile:

Sorry, no. Austerity policy are sold politically as a necessary waypoint towards more, and more sustainable, growth in the long run – a bit like a medical treatment, painful in the short run but the obvious thing to do. The typical argument involves invoking the fundamental theorems of welfare economics and then proceeding to claim that the present (pre-austerity) allocation is distorted: the pensions are too generous, the public sector is bloated etc. A mounting public sector debt is usually interpreted as a gauge that the argument is indeed correct (example).

In Europe, it seems to me, this discourse takes on a more moralistic spin than usual. The most successful and powerful European state, Germany, sees its own success and power stemming directly from conservative spending, working hard and saving for a rainy day. When they insist other European countries bite the austeritarian bullet, they point to their own efforts to raise labor productivity in the 1990s. “It worked for us. Just do it, it’s good for you.”

European Commission officials may privately disagree with the official line – I know at least some that do. But they are public servants, and they see their role as furthering the political goals set by their political leaders, not as challenging them. If we are to work together, we have to identify a space of action in which we are aligned, a part of the way we can all walk even though we are ultimately not going to the same place.

12

Yes and No (but OT) :slight_smile:

Yes :

I agree that :

“Austerity policy are sold politically as a necessary waypoint towards more, and more sustainable, growth in the long run – a bit like a medical treatment, painful in the short run but the obvious thing to do.”

"In Europe, it seems to me, this discourse takes on a more moralistic spin than usual.

…

When they insist other European countries bite the austeritarian bullet, they point to their own efforts to raise labor productivity in the 1990s. “It worked for us. Just do it, it’s good for you.”"

“European Commission officials may privately disagree with the official line – I know at least some that do. But they are public servants, and they see their role as furthering the political goals set by their political leaders, not as challenging them. If we are to work together, we have to identify a space of action in which we are aligned, a part of the way we can all walk even though we are ultimately not going to the same place.”

So, for your interaction with European Commission officials, I agree with you.

No:

I admit this is OT versus the main topic, but my point is that while “Austerity policy are sold politically that way”; Austerity policy as practiced now leads to the opposite. In short : there are arguments for austerity ‘in the long run’, but austerity during a depression aggravates the depression. You must first, short term, get out of the depression, before tackling the long term problems. This is standard keynesian macroeconomics, has been told beforehand and been confirmed in practice.

I think it is important, for the general purpose of understanding in which world we live, to understand why after 4 years of pursuing a policy that results, mostly, in the opposite of what it claims as its goal, that policy is not (officially) questioned.

I am open to counterarguments. But perhaps, as it is OT, in another thread.

some pointers :

Sunday, 1 March 2015

Eurozone fiscal policy - still not getting it

Simon Wren-Lewis

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/20-20-foresight/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

20-20 Foresight

Paul Krugman

http://www.voxeu.org/article/secular-stagnation-eurozone

Secular stagnation in the Eurozone

Paul De Grauwe 30 January 2015

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

On the Stupidity of Demand Deficient Stagnation

Simon Wren-Lewis

Why Stupid Politics Is the Cause of Our Economic Problems

Posted: 01/26/2015

Joseph E. Stiglitz

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/the-record-of-austerity/

The Record of Austerity

January 6, 2015

Paul Krugman

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

On the Stupidity of Demand Deficient Stagnation

Simon Wren-Lewis

13

Granted

I read Krugman and Stiglitz too. But still, I think a meeting in Brussels in which we lecture Commission folks on their macro would be a wasted opportunity. People in Edgeryders want obstacles removed, and a little resources, so that they can get on with the work; so I would use the opportunity to build bridges.

14

Yes

15

downplay paradigm shift stuff to concentrate on solutions

Alberto, I resonate with this approach. During our last meeting Nadia proposed healthcare. Since in Europe healthcare is public, not for-profit, increasing the speed of innovation and making it more efficient makes a lot of sense. In Quantifying the Value of Open Source Hardware Development , Joshua Pearce from Michigan Tech University shows how open source benefits science by reducing the costs of scientific instruments. This can be easily transposed to the healthcare context. I also know that a lot of similar papers have been published about how open source software reduces costs and keeps spending on maintenance within the local economy.

When we talk about open source hardware or software we talk about open source innovation. I call that non-institutionalized innovation, or innovation by the crowd or the people. This leads to the PPP concept, a departure from public-private partnership to public-private-people partnership. We cannot ignore this third pillar in modern innovation, the people, the open source mode of innovation. The problem is that the people side is still not officially and formally recognized and it is way underfunded. There are also forces that try to keep the “people” side of the equation under the rug, because innovation that comes through this channel displaces innovation that comes from the private channel, which can be monetized by corporations.  Example, South Africa has a law to favor open source software for government, which is not enforced due to pressures from Microsoft [see THIS post and THIS post - I can look for better sources, I had one, but lost the link]. So even if you make a law that makes sense, because it reduces installation costs and all the money for maintenance stays into your local economy, the system takes time to change because this measure goes against private interest.

Michel Bauwens also speaks about PPP (public-private-people partnership) and the partner state.

But since we are in healthcare, I think the pressure to reduce costs is enormous, because of the demographics in conjunction with shrinking budgets. I am all for this compartmentalized approach!

16

RIght

Ok, so: compartmentalized but not too vertically, since different communities and network are working on different things. Health care is super-interesting, but we are not “people who do health care” – not  all of us, at least. The message, I think, should be something like this:

“Just like you, we see problems around us. Since we are networks and can’t push individual points of views down our non-existent chain of command, we find it easier to come together around issues that affect many or all of us, so social issues. The networked way of working together gives us different strengths and weaknesses with respect to businesses or government, so we end up doing different things than corporate actors. What you get is social innovation – which we know you like, because it takes some of the burden off an ailing public sector.”

“But we are not like you. Many of us have radical goals. All of us have radical practices [insert your favorite example]. If we are to work together, these practices are to be made interoperable. We are willing to go some of the way [examples here: like Edgeryders incorporating so that there is a legal entity], but if we become just more charities and companies we will lose what makes our contribution unique. Can you meet us halfway? What is the most radical collaboration terrain you could propose?”

17

There are a lot of like minded and talented people in Montreal

I am a fellow affiliate at Sensorica, and working on a contact list, for future email correspondences. There is a lot of talent in Montreal, many start-ups, in making better platforms for social media.

Cheers

Bruce

1 Like