Anthony Judge, a keen observer of organizational dynamics, has written this reaction to our latest new video on P2P.
I will respond later to these subtantial points.
Tony Judge:
You make a good case. My comments are briefly as follows:
— in explaining the magic of Linux and Wiki, and generalizing from that, you use the expression that “somehow” things work. Clearly something works or the products/services would not exist and be valued. The question is at what price they works and what kinds of work cannot be achieved by such processes. Part of the issue is that you necessarilyu make an upbeat case and obscure the downbeat case. My own personal experience of the “magic” of Wikipedia I have documented in the article, Abusive Wikipedia Biographical Editorial Process.
my conclusion is that it works by what in other contexts would be framed as vigilantism which may be acceptable and valued in the Wikipedia context (as it is in some social settings) but there are contexts where this is entirely unacceptable
— I think you imply relevance to tougher decision making contexts but avoid discussing why P2P has not worked in those contexts. Briefly where is the “killer app” that defines the process and ensures runaway acceptance of it?. What makes it stop at certain styles of application? Why do all the apps you cite have peculiar relationships to money which prevent anyone earning a living from it, other than by parasiting on it?
— in the case of Wikipedia, you point to the fact that one has to engage with them to edit a page. My description indicates that such engagement is very similar to that with a totalitarian Kafkaesque hierarchy. You are therefore being misleading.
— I think that P2P works admirably where there are no constraints. But put half a dozen gurus together and there will be problems. They all may flee the context or others may flee any contact with them thru that context. P2P is not addressing the ego problem or is assuming
that it will be of no relevance. If you prefer not to call it an ego problem than call it preferences for Italian or Chinese cuisine, a trivial example except when “Italian” means “Islam” and “Chinese” means “Christian”
— why does P2P not work in tougher Middle East type situations, however well it may work under zero threat — by avoiding threat, “I can walk anytime” situations?
— my original interest in tensegrity was that it explicitly designed in soft and hard relationships. My disappointment is that (despite the potential and Stafford’s efforts) software protocols have not emerged to test the kinds of configurations to which you point in soft terms in order to see where hard elements need to be inserted to make the structures viable. As it is, we are as you said faced with the tyranny of structurelessness
Basically, in my view, there is a missing dimension. At this point in my time I am less interested in what it is or how to get it in and more in why it is assumed that such a dimension is not missing and that everything in the garden is lovely
More info:
Documents relating to Networking, Tensegrity, Virtual Organization: see
http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/themes/aznetwo.php
Comment posted with permission from Tim Gartside:
“I found myself watching it last evening with great interest. The material is certainly full of life the second time around (or I found it so). Indeed, I may well line up for a third pass! There is so much content floating around nowadays, though I give this material a fulsome recommendation in terms of its relevance to the evolution of organisations. Michel has made a keen synthesis of a wide range of social trends (including technology). Much of his practical commentary is highly pertinent to the development of Open Sphere which is concerned with the development of ‘peer to peer’ zones within existing organisations; and organisations learning to alternate between the formal/vertical structure and the open sphere/horizontal structure. The video is just under one hour.”
Dear Tony,
my initial comments were in response to the video itself. I presume Michel has posted your comments to his blog to seek to provoke responses here. And thus, here are some comments on a few of your points:
TENSEGRITY
“My original interest in tensegrity was that it explicity designed in soft and hard relationships”.
Fuller’s tensegrity princple ties in well with Jacob Moreno’s sociometric principles, one of which is that we are attracted to, ambivalent towards, or repelled from another person at a particular time on a particular criterion. I am sufficiently attracted towards responding to you on this sunny Brisbane Sunday afternoon, that I am actually doing it. I am conducting a series of research sessions (Polyhedral Parlours) gathering sociometric data from groups (attractive, ambivalence and repulsion of group members in relation to other group members). Once the data is gathered (a stimulating exercise in and of itself) the groups are building polyhedral models of that data (using foam balls and timber struts). We are then saying if we were seeking to build the most effective polyhedral model of this group (incorporating the ‘soft bits and the hard bits’in a way that will promote circulation of energy in the group) what form would it take. The research is in its early days.
FINANCIAL
“..peculiar relationships to money which prevent anyone earning a living from it, other than by parasiting on it”
I’m not entirely sure what “it” is in this context. Broadly speaking, P2P structures? Again writing from my own experience we’re working on a model in Open Sphere where a surplus generated, for example, from conducting a workshop or seminar can be distributed to people who have contributed to the IP of Open Sphere. Nothing more than an idea at this stage. If the idea were to develop fully and migrate from the immaterial to material realm, then potentially Michel and yourself could be recipients of such a dividend.
PP2 – NO CONSTRAINTS
The way I imagine it is that any particular structure is designed with a set of practices or proctols. There is a delicate interplay between the prospect of progress through the structure being sufficient to attract the neccessary participants and the caution or anxiety some participants might experience at the prospect of taking part. Thus entry is voluntary, but having entered one is then subject to a set of disciplines. Depending on how things are constructed it may not be straigthforward to click off capriciously (“walking away anytime”). Following on from the comments about Open Sphere structures above – one of the important objectives is that we are seeking to create structures that are designed to tolerate higher levels of antipathy or repulsion, and to distribute and resolve those forces through the structure.
ASKING A LOT
It seems a little stiff to suggest (mabye you are doing this, maybe you are not) that because P2P can not immediately point to a killer application or offer a structure to solve the Middle East situation that the model or approach is pollyanna-ish (“everything is lovely in the garden”)!
Surely we are looking for practical demonstrations where P2P principles have been consciously applied, vis a vis derived from existing structures? When we can point to several different situations and say “Yes, that seems to be working pretty well”, then, and only then, can we say all the necessary dimensions seems to be present.
Until then we all vote with our own energy and focus. My belief is that between Moreno, Fuller, Judge and Bauwens all the necessary ingredients are there to foster and contribute to a gentle micro-revolution in the world of corporations.
All the best,
Tim G
Pingback: Responding to Tony Judge on the dark side of peer to peer » P2P Foundation