Advertisement
To do what I think you guys are talking about doing, I am picturing a P2P network with several elements.
People- People can post projects and attempt to find people to do the work they want done. People can attempt to find projects that need their skills. People have profiles. People have friends and friends of friends. People have reputations. People can be mobile and have their locations be known to their friend networks as well as those in their projects should they choose.
Profiles/Searching- People can list their skills, experience, portfolios, resumes, references etc. Skill lists, location, years experience etc can be standardized and searched. People rate those they work with/for after project completion.
Projects- Projects are like tribes. Those who aren't members of the project see only the initial listing, its task breakdown i.e. different parts of the project and skills needed to complete it, those currently involved, and postitions open. For those working on the project, project membership allows file-sharing, discussion boards, chatrooms, etc. Projects can pay in government currency, gifts, status, love, whatever. It is negotiated betweem the person who initially creates the project and those who agree to join it.
Sorry if this is useless/obvious/stupid. It just helps me to get my head around things if I can map them out. I have just been trying to understand how a Glocal Conversation might work. Is this the sort of thing you have in mind?
People- People can post projects and attempt to find people to do the work they want done. People can attempt to find projects that need their skills. People have profiles. People have friends and friends of friends. People have reputations. People can be mobile and have their locations be known to their friend networks as well as those in their projects should they choose.
Profiles/Searching- People can list their skills, experience, portfolios, resumes, references etc. Skill lists, location, years experience etc can be standardized and searched. People rate those they work with/for after project completion.
Projects- Projects are like tribes. Those who aren't members of the project see only the initial listing, its task breakdown i.e. different parts of the project and skills needed to complete it, those currently involved, and postitions open. For those working on the project, project membership allows file-sharing, discussion boards, chatrooms, etc. Projects can pay in government currency, gifts, status, love, whatever. It is negotiated betweem the person who initially creates the project and those who agree to join it.
Sorry if this is useless/obvious/stupid. It just helps me to get my head around things if I can map them out. I have just been trying to understand how a Glocal Conversation might work. Is this the sort of thing you have in mind?
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Thu, November 13, 2003 - 2:25 AMIt is Robert, and you shouldnt be sorry,
I sometimes take things and contexts for granted,
and sometimes I dont give sufficient context for fear
of pointing out obvious stuff.
So your post is both welcome, and meaningful.
I sometimes like to envision this as a p2p-everything-ebay
but that is an oversimplification.
What I do know, is the social networking scene is
only in its beginning stage.
How we use these budding social sites to connect is
key to how this will evolve. -
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Thu, November 13, 2003 - 2:44 AMBut am I right in thinking that GlocalConverstion is NOT a piece of software which enable this?
It's a group who choose to work this way, using this kind of software, and to abide by the consitution?
-
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Fri, November 14, 2003 - 1:17 AMtrying to be agnostic here, even from my own preferred views.
Would it be a good idea to start with an actual project,
coding, prototyping, testing locally, networking globally,
and during the process and the practice, build, collaborate,
tweak, revise, write and rewrite the constitutional/charter
documents ?
A more bottom-up approach ?
Also, a perhaps more evolutionary fit approach,
however, perhaps slightly more messy and complex ?
As I see it, the Glocal Conversation is already happening,
this conversation here, as long as it is globally agnostic,
ie without any minority agenda, and also, eventually beneficient
for our local, personal efforts, then it already *is* a glocal conversation.
This conversaation is obviously enabled, in this case here by tribe, and, this is I believe important to recognize, the tribe
enablement goes beyond the software, and making it possible to type this, its the people level of the software that, when
believed in, allows me to reach out to you, to connect.
Without wanting to sound too warm-fuzzy, I like you guys
enough that I would like to try working with you.
The charter/constitution/living document, would be firmly based in both actual software, AND in a group of people wanting to do stuff, at the same time as it would be constantly rewritten
to reflect where we are, and what we want to accomplish
together.
-
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Thu, November 13, 2003 - 7:11 AMNail on the head. This is my one criticism of you, John. :) I fear, in turn, that a great many people are in the same boat as me, sometimes very confused by your impressive language. While I have no doubt that you know EXACTLY what you're saying, I must admit that sometimes I cannot wrap my head around the context from which well-read business minds are pulling their stops.
Don't take that the wrong way though--it is tremendously engaging and exciting to talk to you, when I grasp everything. ;-) -
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Thu, November 13, 2003 - 1:59 PMAh, this is good.
Please know I´m never ever interested in showing off.
This is, IMO, only a case of us beginning to explore
areas of synergy.
As soon as we get sufficiently clear on our joint efforts,
we´ll start to share the necessary details,
then I can be more specifically helpful.
One important signifier of a glocally networked group
would be their ability to use cutting edge software,
to further their aims.
There´s still no agreed upon language to define this in social terms, and my concepts would thus appear hard to wrap.
First, IMO, we have to be sufficiently clear on which perspective we want to take.
Then, we need a consensual language, that enables us to collaborate, and translate our perspective, our vantage points into living practice.
Thirdly, we code and shape our tools, using the necessary building blocks that is both meaningful, useful, enriching,
and resilient enough to prosper in a volatile environment.
With perspective and ( patterned) language we gain, among other things, speed and adaptability when developing our services according to our clients needs.
Thanks for those kind words, both the flattery and the criticism,
I will take them to heart ! -
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Thu, November 13, 2003 - 3:27 PMAs in the constitution thread, you say here that a common perspective and shared language are needed before we can move forward.
I agree. Could we say that a common perspective would be achieved by discussing, modifying, and agreeing upon a working copy of the Glocal Conversation Charter you posted here:
www.nooranch.com/synaesmed...i/wiki.cgi ?
What method do you propose we use to achieve a common language? Lets have a brief meta-discussion about this meta-discussion so that we might achieve a Glocal Conversation. ;)
Finally, I still don't know the answer to Phil's question about software. You say -
"One important signifier of a glocally networked group would be their ability to use cutting edge software, to further their aims."
and
"Thirdly, we code and shape our tools, using the necessary building blocks that is both meaningful, useful, enriching, and resilient enough to prosper in a volatile environment."
Does this mean yes we will create our own software, or no, we will use what is out there? I read it as a preference for staying flexible, but I think this is an important distinction and maybe a concrete answer would help us towards a shared perspective.
-
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Fri, November 14, 2003 - 12:54 AMYes, the charter was never meant to be a one man show,
I would be very pleased to see an ongoing bricolage of
that document, here, or the wiki-site, whichever works.
Ah, specifics, from my context, the pursuit of fun and happiness, that would imply creating as much new code
as necessary, the creation reflecting the joy of
the coders, and their pride of their skills.
However, we would eventually reach a point where
we would discover that this would lead to in some instances,
reinventing the wheel, there´s perfectly decent chunks
already out there, no big harm in combining writing
original code, with bricolaging whats already there
to use.
It boils down to what the glocal conversation software people
prefers, what do they deep down, want their code to stand for ?
-
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Fri, November 14, 2003 - 11:16 AMJohn,
I think I understand where you're coming from. But at the moment, sometimes I get the feeling this is a brainstorming session where everyone's still a bit nervous about making suggestions in case they're shot down or they alienate the others.
I think at some point GC has to go beyond that. Maybe we have to trust that the others here will respect our ideas. And maybe we have to accept that some will disagree and leave.
So I'm going to suggest a few things that I think are true of GC. I'm very happy for anyone to shoot them down and say "Phil, you're wrong. GC is explicitly NOT that." I'm also happy for people to tell me that I'm stupid and haven't understood. Whichever way, this may help firm things up.
Thesis 1)
Glocal Conversation is NOT a software project.
There are software projects appearing here on Tribe. Some like matador.tribe.net seem to be generating a lot of energy.
Glocal Conversation may include the same people as these projects, may encourage those projects, but it isn't meant to deliver a piece of software.
Thesis 2)
Glocal Conversation is NOT a standards project. It's not promoting a file format or protocol like FOAF. As before, the same people might be members of a standards project like FOAF. And GC may use these standards, but we're not trying to deliver one ourselves.
Thesis 3)
Glocal Conversation IS a group of people. In other words, GC is NOT just a *theory* of how people will use the new capability of the internet to work together in interesting ways which is independent of the members. The members matter. For some reason.
Thesis 4)
Glocal Conversation has some kind of constitution. And membership of the group is open to anyone, but contingent on not violating those rules. If you stop observing the rules, you are no longer a member.
Thesis 5)
Now, it seems from John's recommendations, that the overall aims are hedonistic, to create fun and happiness. But this is NOT, say, a party organizing tribe, nor polyf*ckery. (And presumably not just because we're located on different continents.)
It has something to do with *work* and making *work* more fun. Or meaningful.
Thesis 6)
It MIGHT be something like a market, or an exchange or a recruitment site. Where you can try to find a job or offer a service. And it may be that what makes it different from other similar sites or Tribe's own listings, is that more restrictive constitution.
We agree to abide by narrower rules. And if we don't, we'll be ejected. This, then, would be GC's "unique selling point". Buy here and get the GC seal of approval. Working with or for this person will increase your happiness.
This makes it a bit like my reading of www.xpertweb.com, who's constitution states that payment for services depends on the assessment of the work done. If you work for me, and I don't like it, I pay you less.
(Supplimentary question. John, are you another Ming the Mechanic? And if not, what would you say the differences are?)
Thesis 7)
If that's what Glocal Conversation is. Then, as a pre-requisite, we need some reputation management before we really start. This might be as simple as John keeping a list of members who are in good standing and abiding by the constitution. Or turning this tribe into a moderated one.
That way, he'd be able to throw out constitution breakers if there are complaints about them.
Alternatively there may be some other reputation management systems out there we can use. But SOMEONE has to run one before GC really comes into existence.
Thesis 8)
If Glocal Conversation is NOT a market. Then it needs something else to organize around. Otherwise the conversation here will leak across into other conversational spaces which are more tightly focused. And the group will lose it's coherence.
That may or may not be a problem. If GC is more about collating ideas, then a shifting membership may be fine. It may even be fine if, having stimulated connections and certain conversation, it then evaporates, leaving the new memes to wander where they will.
But it seems that "sustainability" is part of the plan. If so, what are we sustaining, and how is it sustained? -
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Sat, November 15, 2003 - 2:16 AMthese are excellent thoughts Phil,
IMO, they deserve very careful, ongoing answering,
I´ll reflect on them for a couple of days,
before I take a first attempt,
I also believe this merits a topic of its own,
and then the ongoing discussion around each thesis
could migrate into each of the documents,
whether it ends up in a charter or a constitution,
or something else.
I´d like to suggest to everyone to add thoughts,
add additional thesises, anything you deem important
to be included here.
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Sat, November 15, 2003 - 9:49 AMPhil,
Having quite frankly never been a good "team player", I have some initial concerns about number 4. While I do understand the benefits of a strict set of rules (don't get me wrong), this seems to me to necessitate the existence of some rules about how the constitution itself may grow. I can imagine the scope in general evolving over time (or at least trying to), so we should probably be clear about this. Sometimes dissenters have frighteningly good ideas, the "frightening" component being the amount of rules that will have to be broken in order to succeed. Right? -
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Sat, November 15, 2003 - 10:03 AMthere is at least two paths possible towards
resolving this Wendell,
one is having a core set of rules, that we can reach
consensus around, then, a this grows, there could be
additions, clearly distinguishable as additions,
these could be changed, as soon someone new came
along with a better solution/rule/addition,
again, through consensus.
secondly, by some qualified majority/consensus,
we could rewrite, as need arises, incorporating
some of the additions into the core principles,
this could be designed as a slower process,
for sustainability.
Its always a trade-off between having a set of principles
that enables everything to run smoothly,
and a living document, constantly evolving,
adapting to reflect change of circumstances
and growth of the networks acitivity.
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Sun, November 16, 2003 - 10:20 PMI'm a lousy team player soon. That's why I'm interested in so many discussions about distributed, anarchistic systems, that seem to give you co-ordination for free, without too much loss of individuality.
I read the GC interest in the chaordic as a good sign on this. I don't think John wants to be an autocratic leader. Or even define rules very stringently.
-
-
Re: Trying to make sense of this
Sun, November 16, 2003 - 8:17 PMI think that Thesis #6 - #8 are ones we should be talking about right now, and making decisions about.
It seems to me that the GC will be a marketplace, or at least contain one and therefore need a sort of ratings system and perhaps even a central authority to step in should egregious abuses of the GC occur.
I think if we can all at least agree that a part of the function of the GC will be to provide a medium for services to be exchanged and an agreement by participants to follow certain guidelines in this exchange, this will be progress.
(By medium, I mean protocol rather than specific software, website, etc though we should discuss this as well sometime soon.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
