[hackerspaces] Who's Developing P2P-L2G Related Software?

Sat Aug 8 13:31:35 CEST 2009

Hi Michel, Phoebe, Hackers
This is an information and developer gathering mission.
I intend to see to it everyone benefits.
I hope you might as well.

Peer-to-Peer Local-to-Global Platform

There's a particular platform I'm developing with the
OpenKollab<http://wiki.openkollab.com/Home> group that
differs from well known media ecologies like facebook or twitter. The
peer-to-peer local-to-global (P2P-L2G) platform makes a distinction from the
traditional notion of social networking software by expressing the virtual
as it represents physical environments with the option when wanted to
manipulate distant physical environments from a computer in a collaberative
manner.

Who's doing this already?

Closed but exists, leaning toward this area:

Meetup.com
What others?

In Development:

Ted Hall with 100K Garages
http://www.100kgarages.com/

Paul Fernhout with OSCOMAK
http://www.oscomak.net/

Bryan Bishop with SKDB
http://heybryan.org/mediawiki/index.php/Skdb

Smári McCarthy with Tangible Bit
http://tangiblebit.com/

Then there's Sam with FLOWS -- not a L2G platform itself, but a core
architecture that removes code redundancies and in practice assures all
software can talk to other software and related components--like hardware.
http://flows.panarchy.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

What else?

Related:

http://www.thingiverse.com/

What else?

At OpenKollab we're at the networking and formulation stage, amplifying
early for collective attenuation. Real time engagement in the form of irc
chat/Skype and a flexible platform (wagn) is the secret sauce at present.
We're open to other platforms. We're also using a discussion list cc'd.

From...
http://wiki.openkollab.com/Home
"Add Resources <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Resources> that relate to
collaboration. Add
<http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/%3Ca_href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openkollab.com%2Fwagn%2FPeople%22%3EPeople%3C%2Fa%3E>
People <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/People> you know, like yourself,
developing collaborative tools. We are discussing and building on a
set of Principles
and Practices <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/CollabPrinciples> to guide
community action, both locally and globally, to determine what Process
Model<http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Process_Model> we
follow and what Platform <http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Platform> we use.
"

My present area of focus and the focus of this topic:

From...
http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Process_Model
""
"You are all already following a "purpose->process->platform" model to a
large degree, which is good (first define your purpose, then work to create
useful processes that help you accomplish the stated purpose, then choose
your platforms based on the processes you have devised)." -Sam Rose
""

Resource Management Software. Corporate and Closed?

The only other platforms I recall are in the corporate and closed realm,
usually referred to as resource management software. Like...

SAP

I hope Paul Fernhout might present a list here.

I cannot see the economic incentive for enterprise software firms to develop
superior free and open source versions. Yet, if we know how these interface
usefulnesses work, this can funnel into the P2P-L2G process and platform
template, and with any group or individual purposes templates creates return
to the repository for f/os use or whatever license you or your group decide.
I hear firms like SAP are firing a few people; so we might want to get to
know the damaged goods and give them a home. ;) I do not see proprietary RM
stakeholder support until such time P2P-L2G reduces significant
marketshare--and by that point--there will be no need for negotiation.

Business would like very much to do away with software licensing fees and
use a free/open source equivalent, especially if it performed better and
helped attract customers to make a preference specific, custom designed
product. Drink the Kool-Aid fellas!

Please add to the list above
Distiguishing between open and closed models.
Cited here:
http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Resources
Please point me directly to your resources
So I may direct to it.

Okay,

Here's our window to develop a single platform that can advance all of our
projects further in a market neutral fashion beyond our organizational,
institutional, or siloed social networks.

I hope all of you cc'd in particular will respond with input about your
project, share what other projects you know of, and how they might relate to
OpenKollab or similar efforts.

I cannot seem to stress enough that we must all work together on something
that can better fulfill the goals of our projects or works. This is not only
business in the productive sense, but personal. This is why it will not only
work, but out-perform the rest.

If something is not clear, please contact me directly. If I don't have the
answers, we'll find someone who does.

Please direct what you'd like to make public on this topic to the Open
Manufacturing list so we can better stay on the same page.
<openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com>,
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing

Hack on...

Nathan
knuggy at gmail.com

If not already, please read the contents attached for further context:
(thanks in advance for allowing this anti-spam to distribute throughout your
networks)

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Nathan, Sam:
>
> our p2p friend phoebe moore, co-creator of the p2p research group,  will be
> organizing a conference on 'media ecologies' and asked me for some
> suggestions
>
> one of them would be 'media platforms for peer production and open
> collaboration' which could bring a few people together now working on
> similar collaborative platform ideas ...
>
> In this case, this is tentative and depending on funding and where people
> have to come from etc.., a new names of people would be useful .. the idea
> is to give them the opportunity to discuss some ways of combining efforts
>
> the presentations for the conference  should include: 1) what is lacking
> now; 2) what to think of commercial platforms a la facebook: 3) what are
> possible ways forward ...
>
> Michel
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Nathan Cravens <knuggy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>> I'm well rested now. Thanks ;)
>>
>> OpenKollab needs an open architectural base so it can support a variety of
>> small group developers already at work on specific projects such as your
>> own. Now we need guys like you to focus on creating that center from which
>> all varieties might flourish. I am now creating a process model with this
>> group as a template to begin to see what people's needs are in forming
>> projects outside organizational boundaries.
>>
>> Matt Cooperrider began a subproject within OK to create a meetup.comOpenKollab group.
>> From what I hear, and soon to explore further, is meetup.com is not just
>> a platform that builds face-to-face meetings, but a project tool as well,
>> with virtual conference features and such. My recollection of meetup.comis a few years old, back when it was just a face-to-face tool. From what I
>> gather, Matt is forming this to surface a core team of developers for the
>> OpenKollab process and platform to better distinguish between discussion and
>> development. Matt has a contact within the meetup.com development team.
>> That should be helpful.
>>
>> There are a few coders in this project, I just need to get in touch with
>> them directly to see what they want to do.
>>
>> I also need to get in touch with everyone that wants to develop the
>> process model.
>> And artists as well...
>>
>> I have learned from constructing web based learning systems that the way
>>> you set out to create tools is not going to be universally re-usable, but
>>> instead will probably meet the needs of a significant niche in the long tail
>>> of needs.
>>
>>
>> OK must meet the niche and the entirety of the long tail of needs. The
>> models I am attempting to build with this community will simply be an open
>> template to inspire the do-it-all web-to-DIY to come. I'm only attempting to
>> get the ball rolling on presenting a better way to link everyone into one
>> open interface where everything is socially networked (people, interests,
>> projects, designs, land, materials, ecologies, ect). I really hope my
>> intentions are becoming clearer. I just want to see where you might fit into
>> this, because it seems what you're doing now, like with FLOWS, is vital to
>> OK without altering much of what you're already doing.
>>
>>
>> What this means is that you'll need to decide whether you want to dedicate
>>> to serving that niche, or if you want to help a broader base.
>>
>>
>> Both. I hope that is now clear.
>>
>>
>>> if broader base, your tools and processes and the way that they can be
>>> configured need to be highly adaptable and changeable. So, the above
>>> description does have adaptability and evolve-ability in some ways, but is
>>> tightly coupled and hard wired in others.
>>
>>
>> I agree. Like in terms of the consensus assumption I posed, groups should
>> decide whether consensus is necessary or not or of what form of governance
>> they want with each defined process. A consensus approach might be (a
>> potential 'is') default setting or template created by another community.
>>
>> I really think we're on the same page here, Sam, it just seems I need to
>> better express the openness for a decision path after describing each
>> process. I've made the assumption the reader can pick or add to each
>> described process. I'll be sure to clarify this as we move forward. I
>> suppose in a way I have by describing these models as sessions. (See:
>> http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Process_Model) The OK group did a process
>> session before I arrived previously titled spec and changed to Process Model
>> Session 1, so now on the wagn three sessions are listed. I hope this
>> representation will demonstrate the flexibility of the model without getting
>> lost or leaving something without a direction at all.
>>
>> I hope you might attract some readings that relate to systems or process
>> modeling and development so that can improve that design if necessary. I'll
>> add them to Resources.
>> http://wiki.openkollab.com/wagn/Resources
>>
>> I don't want this group to end up like the Open Manufacturing list. This
>> is why I came aboard quickly while the iron is clearly hot, because I know
>> after a measure of time people will fall into assumptive traps and stagnate.
>> This is not to say I think the OM list is a failure or that the people there
>> are inept, quite the contrary. It is a really great list in terms of other
>> lists that came before it. Brilliant people are discussing brilliant things
>> and posting news and other media that relate to the subjects we've
>> discussed. Its now well established as a learning community and discussion
>> group with just a handful of highly active participants like Paul and Bryan,
>> (that may well have kept the list alive) but now as the group has exceeded
>> 200 subscribers, more folk are coming into the discussive mix. The ideas I
>> wanted to pursue at the time when forming the OM list were too vague to be
>> of much help to anything like OK if it were to start then. By the time I
>> developed a pretty good idea in the direction OK is pursuing, the group had
>> already settled into a pattern that many other discussion lists have. What
>> I'm coming to understand by watching the OK community come alive is that
>> without "real time engagement" links within the group are diminished from
>> each other and the results are what you find in the majority of e-mail based
>> discussion lists today. I'm glad I started the group, its a great group, and
>> it will continue to add to the theoretical work now being applied to OK.
>>
>> Now is the chance to note to Matt that a general discussion about this
>> area is already available and that we can keep the existing OK list
>> development focused. If we do sense more general discussion surfacing, we
>> can start new lists that distinguish between the two. I say this from
>> experience, when Bryan Bishop tried to establish a development discussion
>> group for OM it flopped. I could go into why, but that's fodder for another
>> discussion, one I'd rather have at OM. I'll start one if you're interested,
>> but I'm more interested in developing OK with you. ;)
>>
>>
>>> The metaphor for architecture for a malleable collaboration base is
>>> "small pieces loosely joined". Many small reusable and reconfigurable parts,
>>> all optional, and the whole systems itself optional. You want to make it
>>> really easy to add new tools, or for people to work with their existing
>>> tools in conjunction with yours. On top of that, I would not even start to
>>> design and build tools until you actually have some real world people to
>>> work with, who are asking for web based collab tools, and let them drive the
>>> design. But, that is just me.
>>
>>
>> I agree. Let the user's drive the needs, then develop solutions. In this
>> universal architecture there must be a series of "project templates" or
>> solutions that are stored in a user friendly directory to use and revise
>> when needed. These revisions then add to the template repository. This
>> process can apply not only to projects--but all things--anything imaginable.
>> So long as we keep it an open, transparent, and as gift economic as possible
>> I'm very confident the "anything imaginable" will be a good thing for more
>> people than what platform or "conditions creators" we have available today.
>>
>> The 'people' >> 'interest' >> 'project' >> 'design'  >> 'resources' as a
>> process formula (or something like that) will found the pursuit of the many
>> aims to come. Its just a matter of "what do you want to do and how can we
>> apply that to the OK platform." The user is maximized by OpenKollab--this
>> vital link--which connects the person to the world that person may have an
>> interest, and in easily pursuing these interests, when using this platform,
>> the actions benefit the world. We're already seeing this development in the
>> many process outlines that have come before as, Sam, you've mentioned--from
>> Memex before to Facebook and Deepqa today. If we, even as a small group,
>> keep our heads up, our eyes clear, and have an active sincere interest in
>> one another, the trust from within our group will spread to others to better
>> develop the OK platform as we call it presently, and so we have ourself that
>> little everything module in no time--safe and sound. ;)
>>
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> 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: http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090808/fd233e76/attachment-0001.htm 