concerning an ideal structure

[Michel Bauwens]

Dear friends, from what we can observe in other open movements, I think we can discern a triune structure that has proven its resilience for many projects,

- at the heart is a self-governed, meritocratic community, NOT organized in a formal institution but with various processes of quality control etc ..; this is the entity that 'creates' the commons

- associated with the community is a democratically run Foundation which is responsible for maintaining and protecting the infrastructure (finds money and sponsors, organizes conferences, undertakes legal action against licese violators, etc..); this is the entity that protects and maintains the commons

- around the community and its foundation, we have an ecology of small and large businesses which both built on the commons, profit from it, and practice various form of benefit-sharing that sustain both the community and the foundation; these are the entities that maintain the long-term viability of the members and leadership of the whole project, insuring its 'social reproduction'

I think this 'separation of powers' is an important  and workable social innovation that merits emulation for this project as well,

Michel

--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

[Charles N Wyble]

On 04/15/2011 12:12 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> Dear friends, from what we can observe in other open movements, I
> think we can discern a triune structure that has proven its resilience
> for many projects,

Indeed.

>
> - at the heart is a self-governed, meritocratic community, NOT
> organized in a formal institution but with various processes of
> quality control etc ..; this is the entity that 'creates' the commons

Exactly. I've been discussing that on list in a tactical sense.
(blog/wiki/mailing list).

>
> - associated with the community is a democratically run Foundation
> which is responsible for maintaining and protecting the infrastructure
> (finds money and sponsors, organizes conferences, undertakes legal
> action against licese violators, etc..); this is the entity that
> protects and maintains the commons

See the VillageTelco list (thread at .... oh no the site is currently
having technical difficulties. will dig up later) for an amazing
discussion on creating a foundation. They have reached maturity as a
project/commons and are now discussing/debating founding a foundation
and/or advisory board.

>
> - around the community and its foundation, we have an ecology of small
> and large businesses which both built on the commons, profit from it,
> and practice various form of benefit-sharing that sustain both the
> community and the foundation; these are the entities that maintain the
> long-term viability of the members and leadership of the whole
> project, insuring its 'social reproduction'

Right. Constant feed back loop and very interdependent. Like Atcom and
it's relation to VillageTelco. Sorry that I keep holding them up as an
example, but it's the project that I'm the most deeply involved with and
that has been around long enough to have serious traction, staying power
etc.

Please share other examples!

>
> I think this 'separation of powers' is an important and workable
> social innovation that merits emulation for this project as well,

Yep. I agree.

--
Charles N Wyble cha...@knownelement.com @charlesnw
http://blog.knownelement.com
Building tomorrows alternate default free zone

[Jon Lebkowsky]

I haven't seen the term stewardship in these discussions, but I think it's a relevant concept. Michel, your post made me think of it. E.g. the Foundation you suggest would have a stewardship role.

~ Jon

--
Jon Lebkowsky (@jonl)
Internet Expert and Strategist

Honcho, Polycot Associates, LLC

Work |  Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Wikipedia | Blog

[Michel Bauwens]

yes, I believe that is a good formulation!

see also http://p2pfoundation.net/Stewardship and http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Stewardship

this is a mindmap/visualization of p2p oriented forms of governance I made a few years ago, see http://p2pfoundation.net/images/P2P_Governance_Visualization_2large.png. All the concepts featured on that map have an entry in our wiki.

the relevant wiki sections  are http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Governance (general governance of society) and http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peergovernance (specific governance of peer production)

my own take is that community governance, which deals with abundant contributions, is plurarchic, meritocratic and based on contributions; while the Foundation, which deals with the allocation of scarce resources is a representative institution, and the business entities are of course based on wage dependence and therefore inherently hierarchical, except if they are free software cooperatives, or other explicitely egalitarian modes

Michel

[Charles N Wyble]

On 04/15/2011 05:19 AM, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
> I haven't seen the term stewardship in these discussions, but I think
> it's a relevant concept. Michel, your post made me think of it. E.g.
> the Foundation you suggest would have a stewardship role.
>
>

I've used it a few times. I recall using it in the discussion about who
would steward the network (in particular the IP and AS number assets).

[Jon Lebkowsky]

Thanks for those links, very helpful. I thought of another link relevant to these conversations: http://p2pfoundation.net/Communities_of_Practice

~ Jon

[Devin Balkind]

I think it's very important for us to distil how these types of projects are structured, so I attempted to visualize what you wrote with the following diagram:

https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AbhSktWsQi1VZGRyZ3NncnZfMjUwZm1obmJ3Y2s&hl=en

I'd love to create a good schematic and have an artist friend make it pretty.  Edits and feedback welcome.

--
Devin Balkind
@devinbalkind
vitamindwb.com

[Robert Steele]

This is valuable.  I would also say that we need a similar graphic depiction of specific open capabilities within  the Open Source Software and Open Spectrum circles (below is the graphic), i.e. a visual roadmap for how we enable people to share information and make sense of information so as to be self-governing and invulnerable to top down "shut down" or shut out.

Graphic: Open Everything

[Robert Steele]

Very nice.  I have modified your central chart slightly (transparency instead of democracy, environment instead of foundation) and added a couple of depictions of my own.

what I see as easily emergent but not visible yet is a roadmap that should how any combination of open and/or closed devices and channels can allow an entire people to communicate among themselves and with those outside their country with complete security, while making sense and doing participatory substance, not just participatory development.

Graphic: Open Process

http://wp.me/pE94O-aHh

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Devin Balkind <devinb...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Venessa Miemis]

On Apr 15, 12:18 pm, Devin Balkind <devinbalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's very important for us to distil how these types of projects are
> structured, so I attempted to visualize what you wrote with the following
> diagram:
>

> https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AbhSktWsQi1VZGRyZ3NncnZfMjUw...

instead of making it theoretical, it might be useful to plug in actual
projects and organizations into that diagram so that we start to have
a map of the ecosystem we're referring to.

for example, if we're talking about uniting all of these things that
already exist and haven't been joined, let's map it.

who are the stakeholders?

ie

P2P Foundation
Future Forward Institute
New America Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
New Software Foundation
Free Network Movement
Brave New Software
Creative Commons
W3C
Personal Data Ecosystem
Appropedia
FreedomBox
Open Source Ecology
Tor Project
Unhosted

etc etc

big mindmap.

[Robert Steele]

YES!   YES!   YES!    I wish I could communicate as well as you.  That is precisely what is needed at this time.

[Venessa Miemis]

On Apr 15, 12:48 pm, Robert Steele

<robert.david.steele.vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is valuable.  I would also say that we need a similar graphic depiction
> of specific open capabilities within  the Open Source Software and Open
> Spectrum circles (below is the graphic), i.e. a visual roadmap for how we
> enable people to share information and make sense of information so as to be
> self-governing and invulnerable to top down "shut down" or shut out.
>

> Graphic: Open Everything<http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/04/2010/09/2009/10/graphic-open-every...>

i've seen this graphic before, but it doesn't really mean anything to
me. perhaps that's what you're saying above, that you would add
context to this?

for example, a person who doesn't know what you're referring to when
you say "Open" just sees the word open in front of a bunch of other
words.

and then they shrug and close the page.

so... what do you mean by open culture? what is an open school? what
are the components/characteristics of an open society? what does open
government do?

if there's a principle of what "open" means, that description should
be on that graphic, at the least.

or there should be examples of each of these to give the words
meaning.

for instance, look at this graphic for the "Conversation Prism". it's
contextual and paints the landscape/ecosystem with examples, not just
a list of words.

http://teaching-millenials.pbworks.com/f/1232850231/Conversation_Prism.jpg

[Robert Steele]

Posted your list, including New America Foundation (should be the specific project), changed New Software Foundation to Free Software Foundation.

added below that these:

Cook Report on Internet Protocol
Free Internet
GNU Operating System
Liberation Technology Project (Standford University)
NetZero Free Dial-Up Internet Access
Technology Liberation Front

This is the kind of information I wish could be found on the P2P Wiki, where additional over time would have greater value to a greater number.

[Robert Steele]

Love the graphic, cross posted to Phi Beta Iota.

Perhaps one way to approach this is to have a functional requirements document, and for each requirement, identify the free/open source software, hardware that can address it.

I've gone as far as I can go, eager to see what kind of practical specific roadmap others can create.

[Devin Balkind]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Robert Steele <robert.david...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very nice.  I have modified your central chart slightly (transparency instead of democracy, environment instead of foundation) and added a couple of depictions of my own.

My intention is to create a graphic that shows people how to structure an open project.  My chart intends to describe the democractic governance of a foundation that supports/protects the work of a participatory community that creates a 'build'  released through media to users.

I've added 2 other graphs after my first slide that address issues of transparency within a polisci framework.

https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AbhSktWsQi1VZGRyZ3NncnZfMjUwZm1obmJ3Y2s&hl=en
 

[Venessa Miemis]

On Apr 15, 2:06 pm, Robert Steele

i added a Vision section (where we can draft the core mission
statement) and a Stakeholders section to the NextNet page and added in
some info. the page is all messed up b/c i don't know how to do
formatting and don't have time right this second to figure it out. if
someone wants to go in there and clean it up, by all means.

http://p2pfoundation.net/NextNet

[Samuel Rose]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Michel Bauwens <michel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, I believe that is a good formulation!
>
> see also http://p2pfoundation.net/Stewardship and
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Stewardship
>
> this is a mindmap/visualization of p2p oriented forms of governance I made a
> few years ago, see
> http://p2pfoundation.net/images/P2P_Governance_Visualization_2large.png. All
> the concepts featured on that map have an entry in our wiki.
>
> the relevant wiki sections  are http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Governance
> (general governance of society) and
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peergovernance (specific governance of
> peer production)
>
> my own take is that community governance, which deals with abundant
> contributions, is plurarchic, meritocratic and based on contributions; while
> the Foundation, which deals with the allocation of scarce resources is a
> representative institution, and the business entities are of course based on
> wage dependence and therefore inherently hierarchical, except if they are
> free software cooperatives, or other explicitely egalitarian modes
>
> Michel
>

In my own business dealings, I maintain a focus/commitment/social contract to:

- Being a sound participant in various commons

- Freeing Non Rival/Non Excludable output when possible

I think it is important for businesses in the ecology you describe to
understand that they generally will not succeed if they operate under
"traditional" business assumptions.

Some people see a designation like http://www.bcorporation.net/ as a
way that businesses can try and show this commitment. I'd love to see
P2P Foundation offer a certification (or certifications) for
businesses that let's people know they are dealing with ethical,
responsible participant businesses based on a *sound criteria*. This
could be a way for P2PF to create revenue streams for the foundation,
since businesses will pay for this recognition.

--
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samue...@gmail.com
http://futureforwardinstitute.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://hollymeadcapital.com
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://socialmediaclassroom.com

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan

[Venessa Miemis]

On Apr 15, 7:51 pm, Samuel Rose <samuel.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some people see a designation likehttp://www.bcorporation.net/as a

> way that businesses can try and show this commitment.  I'd love to see
> P2P Foundation offer a certification (or certifications) for
> businesses that let's people know they are dealing with ethical,
> responsible participant businesses based on a *sound criteria*. This
> could be a way for P2PF to create revenue streams for the foundation,
> since businesses will pay for this recognition.

+1. great idea.

[Robert Steele]

The graphic is formidable.  There are two aspects that are not reflected in the graphic:

1.  Information commons as the "medium" that enables all else.

2.  Hybid and ad hoc coalitions.  The best way to illustrate what I mean is with this pointer to the iRevolution post of hybrids using shared information to address Russian wildfires that their "imitation" government was unable to understand much less contain.

Information and Communication Technology in Areas of Limited Statehood: A New Form of Governance?

[Michel Bauwens]

excellent idea, something to discuss on the p2p foundation coop list as well,

Michel

[Devin Balkind]

Agreed. Fantastic idea.

DWB

On Apr 15, 2011, at 19:55, Venessa Miemis <veness...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Poor Richard]

I agree with Sam's idea. A p2p certification program would require a very concise and readable set of specifications. Perhaps there should be a number of different certification categories. Across all categories, important common criteria should include transparency, accountability, consent of all those affected -pr

[Robert Steele]

the most obvious should be a commitment to F/OSS, from  http://www.opensource.org/osr-intro

Open Standards Requirement

There are many definitions of "Open Standard". We don't try to define it ourselves, but we know that if you can't implement an Open Standard under an Open Source License, it's not open enough for us. Thus, we have the Open Standard Requirement for Software, our rationale for the requirement, our criteria for compliance, and the FAQ.

I realized this was important when I saw the OSI statement condemning "Core Open Source" as a misrepresentation.  Being in the middle of the Washington cesspool, I see so much misrepresentation, it does wear one down after a while.  So whatever certification you enact, please do consider embracing the OSI bottom line.  Those that purvey proprietary, core, "sort of" "maybe one day" open source should be denied any sort of certification.

[Patrick Anderson]

Devin Balkind wrote:
> My intention is to create a graphic that shows people how to structure an
> open project.  My chart intends to describe the democractic governance of a
> foundation that supports/protects the work of a participatory community that
> creates a 'build'  released through media to users.
>
> I've added 2 other graphs after my first slide that address issues of
> transparency within a polisci framework.
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AbhSktWsQi1VZGRyZ3NncnZfMjUwZm1obmJ3Y2s&hl=en

I am very concerned the graph seems to show Users being disallowed
entrance, when they should be a central to the movement.

Free Software developers often do the work (play) they do because they
are scratching an itch - in other words they are Users.

Richard Stallman (Saint IGNUcius) preaches "Free software is a matter
of the users' freedom" -- http://GNU.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Steve Ballmer wrongly preaches "Developers, Developers, Developers,
Developers" -- http://YouTube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE

[Venessa Miemis]

i noticed these resources on the coalition of the willing mailing
list, not sure if these were already crossposted here:

Decision Making for an Open Enterprise:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ukADSYqMntWLAi4Q1tmrccNtFQcP8DT8xL0aoum4Oc0/edit?hl=en&pli=1#

The Open Organizations Project:

http://www.open-organizations.org/

also, this is nice, from bettermeans. Open Enterprise Manifesto:

http://bettermeans.org/front/learn-more/open-enterprise-manifesto/

i can imagine culling the best stuff from these various sources,
perhaps collaborating with the authors, adding in some stuff from
http://www.bcorporation.net/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3C, and
drafting out the guidelines of the certification you're discussing.

i'm sure there are many people within the nonprofit and 'social
capital' community (http://socialcapitalmarkets.net/) that would very
interested in this certification. probably the ethical markets folks
too (http://www.ethicalmarkets.com/).

- v

[Venessa Miemis]

once this was accomplished, i'd be happy to write a "What is Open Enterprise" type post that explains the need for this framework and what is being developed. it would probably travel well around the web. would be happy to crosspost it to the blog i have on Forbes. get the mainstream business folks in tune. was also just contacted by CNN.com to be given some kind of column there, so i'd be happy to spread the word once something solid is in place.

- the messenger :)

[Michael Maranda]

Following up on the comment by Jon associating Stewardship with the Foundation side of things -- I don's see why we wouldn't cultivate or encourage Stewardship from all three legs of this community structure.

For the more general community -- the term Meritocratic was put forth.   I'd like to hear more on this.  I don't have anything profound to say or ask.   I have in mind some contrast with do-ocracy, and some sense of gradations of involvement.

Regarding Venessa's comment about list of "Open" terms -- I think it's rather valuable to explore the richness of the Open meme.  Many applications or associations of the term or pre-fix "Open" carry a different valence in these diverse contexts.  Seeing them juxtaposed brings this out and forces us to be more explicit about what sort of openness is most salient in a given context.  I have in mind occasions where we challenge other facets of the openness meme for not being open in the way we prefer, without adequately valuing the way in which they are attempting to operate openly.  I also observe that much in the openness realm is a matter of degree, in practical terms, rather than an absolute.   Exploring these different aspects and the processes of coming to an appropriate openness for the circumstance is an important learning process.

Happy Saturday!

PS Michel --- Id like to join the P2P Coop list!

[Poor Richard]

Wonderful, Venessa. It seems you are really a *power messenger* :)

I especially liked bettermeans' very sophisticated but readable and broadly targeted (audience-wise) Open Enterprise Manifesto:
http://bettermeans.org/front/learn-more/open-enterprise-manifesto/

That is the kind of thing I was getting at with my comment at bettermeans/Next Net about broadening the target audience beyond network nerds -- people in the labor movement and a broader variety of journalists could also appreciate this kind of presentation.

PR

[Technoshaman]

i also see some interesting complementarities with the "most
democratic workplaces" award by WorldBlu
http://www.worldblu.com/

On 16 Apr, 12:06, Venessa Miemis <venessamie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i noticed these resources on the coalition of the willing mailing
> list, not sure if these were already crossposted here:
>
> Decision Making for an Open Enterprise:
>

> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ukADSYqMntWLAi4Q1tmrccNtFQcP8DT8x...

>
> The Open Organizations Project:
>
> http://www.open-organizations.org/
>
> also, this is nice, from bettermeans. Open Enterprise Manifesto:
>
> http://bettermeans.org/front/learn-more/open-enterprise-manifesto/
>
> i can imagine culling the best stuff from these various sources,

> perhaps collaborating with the authors, adding in some stuff fromhttp://www.bcorporation.net/orhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3C, and

[Devin Balkind]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Devin Balkind wrote:
> My intention is to create a graphic that shows people how to structure an
> open project.  My chart intends to describe the democractic governance of a
> foundation that supports/protects the work of a participatory community that
> creates a 'build'  released through media to users.
>
> I've added 2 other graphs after my first slide that address issues of
> transparency within a polisci framework.
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AbhSktWsQi1VZGRyZ3NncnZfMjUwZm1obmJ3Y2s&hl=en

I am very concerned the graph seems to show Users being disallowed
entrance, when they should be a central to the movement.

If people are contributing to the project, I'd consider them a part of the community.  User's aren't disallowed entrance, they're just choosing not to become part of the community by limiting their interaction with the 'build' to be simply using the build and (possible) sharing the results with others.

I updated the graph to make this more clear, but I'm very much not a designer and I think there's lots of room for improvement, especially around how the foundation is represented.

Michel,  generally speaking, how do the build's core contributors and it's nonprofit foundation relate to each other?

 

Free Software developers often do the work (play) they do because they
are scratching an itch - in other words they are Users.

Richard Stallman (Saint IGNUcius) preaches "Free software is a matter
of the users' freedom" -- http://GNU.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Steve Ballmer wrongly preaches "Developers, Developers, Developers,
Developers" -- http://YouTube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE

[Robert Steele]

This is very nice.  The later slides in the series are new to me.  Thanks for allowing download which allows quick JPEGing.  Two slides and one reference cross-posted to Phi Beta Iota with Tip of the Hat to you.

[Patrick Anderson]

Devin Balkind wrote:
> If people are contributing to the project, I'd consider them a part of the
> community.  User's aren't disallowed entrance, they're just choosing not to
> become part of the community by limiting their interaction with the 'build'
> to be simply using the build and (possible) sharing the results with others.
>
> I updated the graph to make this more clear, but I'm very much not a
> designer and I think there's lots of room for improvement, especially around
> how the foundation is represented.
>

Thanks for making that change.
The new version is much better.

Showing the users as an outermost
container is I think better than my
suggestion to make them central.

It fits well with a metaphor I have
struggled to convey in a pleasing
manner - where the users should
accept the roles to protect, guard,
and generally support the welfare
of those who have the skills to do
the building that must be done.

This includes shouldering the risks
and burdens of funding, installing,
and maintaining all of the Physical
Sources any artisans will need to
accomplish the goals of 'building'.

I believe we must eventually also
include a way to supply a sort of
"Basic Outcome" for those players
so they don't need to worry about
the distracting problems of food,
shelter, basic health care, etc.

I envision a wide variety of these
structures - at least one for each
kind of product that any subgroup
within a community may want.

Each subgroup of users buys or funds
the construction of such a structure
(say a milk dairy or Avocado orchard)
and then attract those with skills and
the desire to operate those Sources by
offering to operate some Sources in
the community for which they have
skill and desire (say fixing teeth or
shoveling manure).

Operating in this way will allow us to
minimize the need to trade goods while
maximizing our opportunities to trade
a wider variety of skills which will make
work seem more like play because we
will be liberated from the monotony
and repetition of doing the same job
for much longer than we might want
because we, as workers, will not be
tied-down to the Physical Sources
(land, tools, buildings, etc.) we are
usually required to fund ourselves,
but will leave that responsibility to
the Users who desire that product.

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Michael,

I would say that meritocratic refers to the fact that key contributors rise to influence in open communities, and it is combined with plurarchy, both within, i.e. producing differerently without prior agreement being necessary, and without, through forking ... along with many other features I try to tease out at http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peergovernance and http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peerproduction

regarding the coop list, this is a closed list for our cooperative venture, but feel free to contact me privately on this

info on openness and its variants also via http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Open,

Michel

 Topic: concerning an ideal structure

Michael Maranda <trop...@gmail.com> Apr 16 07:45AM -0500 ^

 
Following up on the comment by Jon associating Stewardship with the
Foundation side of things -- I don's see why we wouldn't cultivate or
encourage Stewardship from all three legs of this community structure.
 
For the more general community -- the term Meritocratic was put forth. I'd
like to hear more on this. I don't have anything profound to say or ask.
I have in mind some contrast with do-ocracy, and some sense of gradations of
involvement.
 
Regarding Venessa's comment about list of "Open" terms -- I think it's
rather valuable to explore the richness of the Open meme. Many applications
or associations of the term or pre-fix "Open" carry a different valence in
these diverse contexts. Seeing them juxtaposed brings this out and forces
us to be more explicit about what sort of openness is most salient in a
given context. I have in mind occasions where we challenge other facets of
the openness meme for not being open in the way we prefer, without
adequately valuing the way in which they are attempting to operate openly.
I also observe that much in the openness realm is a matter of degree, in
practical terms, rather than an absolute. Exploring these different
aspects and the processes of coming to an appropriate openness for the
circumstance is an important learning process.
 
Happy Saturday!
 
PS Michel --- Id like to join the P2P Coop list!

[Michel Bauwens]

one of the key features of peer production is access for use and production without prior permission, and with the control mechanisms moved away from the 'controlling access' and 'controlling work process' to  'controlling quality of the results'; though there may be in some cases (debian?) some conditionalities attached to participation by requiring proof of knowledge and recognition by a peer/mentor (debian community is reputed very democratic in those aspects)

those that control the quality are 'chosen' by various means, sometimes by a benevolent dictator, but they are generally accepted by the community because of their prior contributions and since participation is voluntary and there is no wage, there is no wage dependency and hence, no strict hierarchical dependency

of course, this is an ideal type, in practice, people may contribute to the commons who are actually paid by a corporation (75% of linux developers) but within the commons, the corporate hierarchy does not apply, there is an independent process of validation

this process is based on a potential abundance in contributions and the marginal cost of reproduction, so that scarcity allocation  mechanisms are not needed

however, the cooperation still needs an infrastructure, which may be costly, some core management tasks may not be sustainable in the long run with only volunteers, and there are social needs (annual conferences) that need to be covered, as well as legal protection, etc..  This is the role of the foundation, which deals with scarce resources and is ideally democratically managed to do that (apache foundation is rumoured to be very democratic in that aspect)

regarding your question, I think that the situation is as follows, given the 1-9-90 percent rule, i.e. it's really a core doing all the work, and since it is impossible to do this consistently on a volunteer basis, I think that indeed with time, this core contributors also become the leaders of the foundation, but in this case, they have a dual role, i.e. they have management responsibilities towards the resource base managed by the foundation, but, that doesn't make them paid leaders with hierarchical powers over the community, i.e. they still do not dictate the production process via command and control, as would be the case in classic corporation or hierarchy

of course, they form a different type of hierarchy, that yields influence according to the tenets and rules of peer production,

(and all this becomes more complicated once we factor in the influence of the corporations over both the foundations and the community, through its fundings and salary payments)

Michel

Devin Balkind <devinb...@gmail.com> Apr 16 07:46PM -0400 ^

 

> https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AbhSktWsQi1VZGRyZ3NncnZfMjUwZm1obmJ3Y2s&hl=en
 
> I am very concerned the graph seems to show Users being disallowed
> entrance, when they should be a central to the movement.
 

If people are contributing to the project, I'd consider them a part of the
community. User's aren't disallowed entrance, they're just choosing not to
become part of the community by limiting their interaction with the 'build'
to be simply using the build and (possible) sharing the results with others.
 
I updated the graph to make this more clear, but I'm very much not a
designer and I think there's lots of room for improvement, especially around
how the foundation is represented.
 

Michel, generally speaking, how do the build's core contributors and it's
nonprofit foundation relate to each other?