P2P Foundation

Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices


Featured Book

The Neighborhood in the Internet


Open Calls


Mailing List

Subscribe

Translate

  • Recent Comments:

    • Jaap: You are spot on. Hierarchies are outdated and do not work any more. The Dilbert (model for modern knowledge worker) and his boss show that...

    • David de Ugarte: Thanks a lot Michel!! It is an honor to be quoted here!

    • Matthew Slater: I congratulate #Occupy for distilling such a coherent statement from such a cacophony of opinions. However as one of the citizens...

    • Charles van der Haegen: The sheer multitude of initiatives that are sprouting out of the ground everywhere is really impressive. It demonstrates a...

    • Skeptic: 300 hundred leaders? Personal emails? Looks like a massive bcc’ed personal agenda. But no problem, sure… consulting teams?...

Everything written by Franco Iacomella

Video: Capitalism – illustrated

photo of James Burke

James Burke
2nd August 2010


“The folks at Cognitive Media took 10 minutes of David Harvey’s marxist analysis of the financial crisis and created this entertaining information visualization. Harvey’s full lecture is worth watching, too.”

via social design notes

Share

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Video:Patent Absurdity – how software patents broke the system

photo of James Burke

James Burke
21st July 2010


PatentAbsurdity

Patent Absurdity explores the case of software patents and the history of judicial activism that led to their rise, and the harm being done to software developers and the wider economy. The film is based on a series of interviews conducted during the Supreme Court’s review of in re Bilski — a case that could have profound implications for the patenting of software. The Court’s decision is due soon…

With interviews from Eben Moglen, Dan Bricklin, Karen Sandler, Richard Stallman and others…

You can also find about more about Patents on the P2P Wiki.

Share

Posted in Open Content, Open Design, Open Models, P2P Development, P2P Movements, P2P Public Policy, P2P Software, Uncategorized, Video | No Comments »

Personal genomics anyone?

photo of James Burke

James Burke
8th July 2010


pcr

Do you want to explore your own genome, hack together DNA code, build your own biofuel, or prove that the trees in your backyard really are Truffula trees? You’ll need a PCR machine, one of the cornerstones of molecular biology, which costs $4,000 up to $10,000. How are the Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Andy Warhol of biotech going to get their start if the simplest biotech tools cost so much?

In 1983, Kary Mullis first developed PCR, for which he later received a Nobel Prize. But the tool is still expensive, even though the technology is almost 30 years old. If computing grew at the same pace, we would all still be paying $2,000+ for a 1 MHz Apple II computer. Innovation in biotech needs a kick start!

They already got more than the amount of funding they were asking for!

via kickstarter

Share

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Video: Collaborative Consumption

photo of James Burke

James Burke
17th June 2010


Rachel Botsman, co-author with Roo Rogers of the upcoming book “What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption”, was one of the speakers atTEDx Sydney, the conference which featured a selection of Australia’s leading visionaries and storytellers on May 22nd.

The book Collaborative Consumption describes the rapid explosion in traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting, and swapping redefined through technology and peer communities.

From enormous marketplaces such as eBay and Craigslist, to emerging sectors such as social lending (Zopa) and car sharing (Zipcar), Collaborative Consumption is disrupting outdated modes of business and reinventing not just what we consume but how we consume. New marketplaces such as Swaptree, Zilok, Bartercard, AirBnb, and thredUP are enabling “peer-to-peer” to become the default way people exchange—whether it’s unused space, goods, skills, money, or services — and sites like these are appearing everyday, all over the world.

In her talk she presents a strong case for 21st Century sharing.

via Putting People First

Share

Posted in P2P Architecture, P2P Business Models, P2P Collaboration, P2P Software, P2P Technology, Peer Production, Video | 1 Comment »

Video: Extrinsic vs Intrinsic motivation

photo of James Burke

James Burke
20th February 2010


Great TED talk by Daniel Pink.

More info at one of our most popular pages in our P2P wiki.

Share

Posted in P2P Collaboration, P2P Culture, P2P Economics, P2P Labor, P2P Science, Peer Production, Video | No Comments »

Commons in a taxonomy of goods

photo of James Burke

James Burke
16th January 2010


The Commons has the potential to replace the commodity as the determining form of re-/producing societal living conditions. Such a replacement can only occur, if communities constitute themselves for every aspect of life, in order to take „their“ commons back and to reintegrate them into a new need-focused logic of re-/production.

Stefan Meretz has produced, with his daughter, a very useful and clear taxonomy of common goods, according to five criteria. Pauline Schwarze and Franco Iacomella provided translation support, from the original German to English.

taxonomy-of-goods
taxonomy-of-goods

Stefan Meretz:

“The word „common“ is the best starting point for the analysis. The common thing within a commons are the resources, which are used and cared for, are the goods resulting from joint activities, and are the social relationships emerging from acting together. These three aspects are so different for all commons, that no one could describe them in a reasonably complete manner.

I decide to put the concept of „good“ into the center, while describing from the triple definition explained above: as a common good, as a resource and as a social form.

In the adjoining illustration a good is designated by five dimensions. Beside the already mentioned dimensions resource and social form, there are constitution, usage and legal form.

1. Constitution

The constitution describes the type materiality of a good. We can found two types: material and non-material goods.

Material goods have a physical shape, they can be used up or crushed out. Purpose and physical constitution are linked with each other, material goods perform their purpose only by their physical constitution. If the physical constitution gets dismantled the purpose also gets lost.

On the other hand non-material goods are completely decoupled from a specific physical shape. This contains services defined by a coincidence of production and consumption as well as preservable non-material goods. In fact, a service often leads to a material result (haircut, draft text etc.), but the service itself finishes by establishing the product, i.e. it has been consumed. Now the result is falling into a material good category.

Preservable non-material goods need a physical carrier. Having non-digital („analog“) goods the bonding of the good to a specific material constitution of the carrier can yet be tight (e.g. the analog piece of music on the audiotape or disk record), while digital goods are largely independent from the carrier medium (e.g. the digital piece of music on an arbitrary digital medium).

2. Usage

The usage has got two sub-dimensions: excludability and rivalry. They grasp aspects of access and concurrent utilization.

A good can only be used exclusively, if the access to the good is generally prevented and selectively allowed (e.g. if a „bagel“ is bought). It can be used inclusively, thus non-exclusively, if the access is possible for all people (e.g. Wikipedia). The usage of a good is rival or rivalrous, if using the good by one person restricts or prevents use options for other people (e.g. listening to music by earphones). A usage is non-rival, if this does not result in limitations for others (e.g. a physical formula).

The usage scheme is used by classical economists as the authoritative charateristic for goods. But it is far too narrow-minded. It combines two aspects which in fact occur together with usage while the causes are completely different. The exclusion is a result of an explicit activity of excluding people, thus closely linked with the social form. On the other hand, the rivalry is closely linked with the constitution of the good—indeed, an apple can only be eaten once, for the next consumption a new apple is needed.

3. Resources

The production of goods requires resources. Though sometimes nothing is produced, already existing resources are used and maintained. In this case the resource itself is the good, which is considered to be preserved—for instance a lake. We can usually find some mixed case , because no produced good can go without the resource of knowledge which has been created and disposed by others. By resources, we generally understand non humans sources .

In the illustration, natural and produced resources are distinguished. Natural resources are already existing and raw resources which, however, are seldom found in uninfluenced environments. Produced resources are material or non-material created preconditions for further use in the production of goods or resources in the broadest sense.

4. Social form

The social form describes the way of (re-)production and the relations that humans commit to each other when doing so. Three social forms of (re-)production have to be distinguished: commodity, subsistence, and commons.

A good becomes a commodity, if it is produced in a general way for the exchange (selling) on markets. Exchanging has to occur because, in capitalism, production is a private activity and each producer produce separated from the others and all are ruled by competition and profit searching. The measure of exchange is the value, which is the average socially necessary abstract labor being required to produce the commodity in certain historical moment. The medium of exchange is money. The measure of usage is the use value being the „other side“ of the (exchange) value. Thus, a commodity is a social form, it is the indirect exchange-mediated way of how goods obtain general societal validity. Preconditions are scarcity and exclusion from the access of the commodity, because otherwise exchange will not happen.

A good maintains the form of subsistence, if it is not produced in a general way for others, but only for personal use or benefit of personally known others (family, friends etc.). Here, exchange does not occur or only for exceptional cases, but the good is relayed, taken, and given—following any immediately agreed social rule. A transition form to commodity is barter, the direct non-money mediated exchange of goods.

A good becomes a commons, if it is generally produced or maintained for others. The good is not exchanged and the usage is generally bound to fixed socially agreed rules. It is produced or maintained for general others insofar as it neither has be personal-determined others (like with subsistence) nor exclusively abstract others with no further relationship to them (like with commodity), but concrete communities agreeing on rules of usage and
maintenance of the commons.

5. Legal form

The legal form shows the possible juridical codes which a good can be subjected to: private property, collective property, and free good. Legal arrangements are necessary under the conditions of societal mediation of partial interests, they form a regulating framework of social interaction. As soon as general interests are part of the way of (re-)production itself, legal forms can step back in favor of concrete socially agreed rules as it is the case within the commons.

Private property is a legal form, which defines the act of disposal of an owner over a thing with exclusive control over the property. The property abstracts from the constitution of the thing as well as from the concrete possession. Private property can be merchandise, can be sold or commercialized.

Collective property is collectively owned private property or private property for collective purposes. Among them, there are common property and public (state) property. All designations of private property are basically valid here. There are various forms of collective property, for instance stock corporation, house owner community, nationally-owned enterprise.

Free goods (also: Res nullius, Terra nullius or no man’s land) are legally or socially unregulated goods under free access. The often cited „Tragedy of Commons“ is a tragedy of no man’s land, which is overly used or destroyed due to missing rules of usage. Such no man’s lands do exist yet today, e.g. in high-sea or deep-sea.”

More commentary at the original article here.

Share

Posted in P2P Business Models, P2P Commons, P2P Economics, Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Emergence of Commons Trusts as Policy Framework

photo of James Burke

James Burke
16th November 2009


The poster below is an update to our announcement on the creation of a UN Lobby for Global Governance of the Commons by the People. This poster is used by James Quilligan, co-founder of the lobby.

Share

Posted in P2P Public Policy, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Digital Labor conference

photo of James Burke

James Burke
6th October 2009


(posted on behalf of Trebor Shulz)

Register now for “The Internet as Playground and Factory” conference at The New School, Eugene Lang College November 12-14.

Here at digitallabor.org/registration/

This will be a great conference, with a stellar cast of scholars and very well prepared by Trebor Scholz and his team.

I’m honoured to participate.

See more videos on the right hand side of the web address here.

If you’re interested in the topic, here’s a specialized tag.

The Internet as Playground and Factory – Register Now from Trebor Scholz.

12-14th November. at Eugene Lang College in New York
For more information click here

Share

Posted in P2P Event, Uncategorized, Video | 1 Comment »

Participatory Leadership

photo of James Burke

James Burke
27th August 2009


We have started to separately collate material on the new forms of leadership that are emerging in networked communities.

You can find our tag here.

Our latest find is this table by Chris Corrigan, which contrasts the new requirements with those of classic hierarchical industrial firms and bureaucracies.

Traditional ways of working

Participatory leadership complementing

Individuals responsible for decisions Using collective intelligence to inform decision-making
No single person has the right answer but somebody has to decide Together we can reach greater clarity – intelligence through diversity
Hierarchical lines of management Community of practice
Wants to create a FAIL-SAFE environment Creates a SAFE-FAIL environment that promotes learning
Top-down agenda setting Set agenda together
I must speak to be noticed in meetings Harvesting what matters, from all sources
Communication in writing only Asking questions
Organisation chart determines work Task forces/purpose-oriented work in projects
People represent their services People are invited as human beings, attracted by the quality of the invitation
One-to-many information meetings A participatory process can inform the information!
Great for maintenance, implementation (doing what we know) When innovation is needed – learning what we don’t know, to move on – engaging with constantly moving targets
Information sharing When engagement is needed from all, including those who usually don’t contribute much.
Dealing with complaints by forwarding them to the hierarchy for action Dealing with complaints directly, with hierarchy trusting that solution can come from the staff
Consultation through surveys, questionnaires, etc. Co-creating solutions together in real time, in presence of the whole system
Top-down Bottom-up
Management by control Management by trust
Questionnaires (contribution wanted from DG X) Engagement processes – collective inquiry with stakeholders
Mechanistic Organic – if you treat the system like a machine, it responds like a living system
Top down orders – often without full information Top-down orders informed by consultation
Resistance to decisions from on high Better acceptance of decisions because of involvement
Silos/hierarchical structures More networks
Tasks dropped on people Follow your passion
Rigid organisation Flexible self-organisation
Policy design officer disconnected from stakeholders Direct consultation instead of via lobby organisations
People feel unheard/not listened to People feel heard
Working without a clear purpose and jumping to solutions Collective clarity of purpose is the invisible leader
Motivation via carrot & stick Motivation through engagement and ownership
Managing projects, not pre-jects Better preparation – going through chaos, open mind, taking account of other ideas
Focused on deliverables Focused on purpose – the rest falls into place
Result-oriented Purpose-oriented
Seeking answers Seeking questions
Pretending/acting Showing up as who you are
Broadcasting, boring, painful meetings Meetings where every voice is heard, participants leave energised
Chairing, reporting Hosting, harvesting, follow-up
Event & time-focused Good timing, ongoing conversation & adjustment
Share

Posted in P2P Commons, P2P Governance, P2P Hierarchy Theory, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Where does food come from? (Canada)

photo of James Burke

James Burke
17th July 2009


This video presentation about the (re)localization of food production is remarkable for its infographics:

via @Edial and Bright

Share

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »