Fwd: {SENSORICA Open Forum} a new Valueflo.ws interface

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tiberius Brastaviceanu <tiberius.br...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: {SENSORICA Open Forum} a new Valueflo.ws interface
To: <sensorica-...@googlegroups.com>, Open Value Networks Infrastructure <OVNsInfrastru...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Hadi Shamieh <hadi.s...@gmail.com>, <marjaba...@gmail.com>, daaboul mayssam <mayssam...@gmail.com>

Hi Bob,

We recently had an exchange about this with Hadi. See pdf attached.

The case was about Praxeco, which has the status of a community  within the Sensorica ecosystem. Hadi stewards this community.

The case occurred within the Greens for Good project (formally Leaves Blender). Since Praxeco was involved with Precious Plastic, they had experience with extruders and heavier mechanics. Hadi proposed to have Praxeco as an affiliate of the Greens of Good project, instead of him as an individual and other members of the Prazeco community. Any Praxeco member could contribute to the project and log as Praxeco. Money would be transferred from CAKE (Sensorica's Custodian) to Praxeco and the final distribution would take place within Praxeco, according to their own redistribution agreements. Bernard is a Praxeco member active in the Greens for Good project.

The problem is that an agent cannot be a network, individual and/or a context (project) at the same time in the NRP.

So we had to create PraxecoAffiliate as an individual within the NRP.

A requirement would be to consider Agent Types as properties of an Agent, and make it possible for Agents to have more than one of these properties ast the same time. An Agent can be a Custodian in a Project or in a Network and be an Affiliate in another Project or Network. An Agent can be a Network but can also be an affiliate within another Network. Etc... 

Some rules are required. For example, I would add a rule to forbid an Agent to be the Custodian and an Affiliate in the same Project. That is because this represents conflict of interest, giving the Costodian+Affiliate more control and influence than other Affiliates.

So this redefinition of Agent Type requires a logic, which is based on an Ethos (system of rules) and becomes part of the formal Governance.

Bob, you can tag me in that discussion with Holochain. This type of issue branches beyond the NRP and valueflows. I could provide more insights based on the Sensorica experience.

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 8:38 AM Bob Haugen <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

Tiberius,  thanks for the notes.

 I'm interested in more details about a couple of them. I'd like to start with
>  An organisation (group of people) cannot contribute to another project.

Got an example or two, maybe with links to the old NRP pages if that situation was recorded in any way there?

This is an ongoing issue in Holochain, for example, and will get to the surface soon in ActivityPub. 

--
SENSORICA Open Forum
This forum is open to the public.
www.sensorica.co
https://www.facebook.com/sensorica.co
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SENSORICA open forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sensorica-open-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sensorica-open-forum/e1772a6d-f04e-41b5-a983-f8491ffc361fn%40googlegroups.com.

--

t!b! 

co-founder of SENSORICA: an open value network

co-founder of CAKE: consulting for the Collaborative Economy

founder of Multitude Project: informing the new multitude

Profile

www.facebook.com/tiberius.brastaviceanu

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tiberiusbrastaviceanu/

@TiberiusB

--

t!b! 

co-founder of SENSORICA: an open value network

co-founder of CAKE: consulting for the Collaborative Economy

founder of Multitude Project: informing the new multitude

Profile

www.facebook.com/tiberius.brastaviceanu

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tiberiusbrastaviceanu/

@TiberiusB

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

>  Problem with designing a workflow. No flexibility of the recipe.

What types of flexibilities are missing that you have wanted?

Hi Bob,

During the conversation I spoke about flexibility in general, on the planning side, as well as on the feedback side (analysis and visuals on the state of the open enterprise).

"No flexibility of the recipe." would imply that we want to preserve recipe as a method to organize workflows, but need to allow the user to customize recipes. The need for flexibility in planning that I expressed goes beyond recipes. It is to allow groups to use various planning and management models, in different types of processes, from the ones that are highly scripted to the ones that cannot be formalized, but still require tools to keep track of things. I also spoke about the difference between planning and emergence through stigmergy. We are experimenting a lot with stigmergy in the Greens for Good project. You can see the traces of stignergy in the work environment (example). I believe that self organization of processes through stigmergy has great potential and can be scaled. Planning doesn't scale well. I see the signs in that. I also discovered that very few people can perform well in this stigmergic mode, not because we don't have the ability to do it as human beings, but because we haven't learned it, we haven't developed the skills. I can see how people are improving.

So the NRP should offer flexibility on that whole spectrum, from planning to self organization of processes through stigmergy. Any planning method or tool that people might want to use could be made to interface with the NRP, which is translating everything into the NRP language built on REA. I think the NRP should not prescribe planning methods and tools. It should only offer an interface for planning methods and tools to plug into it.

NOTE: I will remix the discussion video linked above, I'll add visuals to it, so that people see what we are talking about. I'll repost the new version on LBRY.

 

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 9:45 AM Bob Haugen <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm also interested in 

>  Problem with designing a workflow. No flexibility of the recipe.

What types of flexibilities are missing that you have wanted?

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 7:38:01 AM UTC-5 Bob Haugen wrote:

Tiberius,  thanks for the notes.

 I'm interested in more details about a couple of them. I'd like to start with
>  An organisation (group of people) cannot contribute to another project.

Got an example or two, maybe with links to the old NRP pages if that situation was recorded in any way there?

This is an ongoing issue in Holochain, for example, and will get to the surface soon in ActivityPub. 

--
SENSORICA Open Forum
This forum is open to the public.
www.sensorica.co
https://www.facebook.com/sensorica.co
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SENSORICA open forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sensorica-open-f...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sensorica-open-forum/efaa6ed7-be93-4344-bef7-159cc001bb16n%40googlegroups.com.

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

Salut Olivier,

Oui, certainement.

J'aimerais que cette discussion vidéo soit enregistrée et que nous puissions aussi la modifier et la diffuser. Beaucoup de monde travaille sur ce genre de choses et il serait bien de mieux distribuer cette information. Autrement je considère la rencontre comme un service de consultation.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 1:24 AM Olivier Wénin <olivie...@openflow.be> wrote:

Hello Tiberius 

Je suis Olivier, le dirigeant de OpenFlow. Nous avons déjà parlé ensemble il y a quelques mois. J’ai expérimenté des projets développés en commun au sein de OpenFlow, avec un modèle de rétribution. J’aimerais te parler en vidéo si c’est possible pour échanger sur des questions que j’ai et voir comment vous gérez cela chez sensorica. Serais tu d’accord ?

Bonne journée

Olivier

Le lun. 14 juin 2021 à 01:04, Bob Haugen <bob.h...@gmail.com> a écrit :

Thanks again for the detailed feedback and examples. I look forward to the enhanced video. We watched the last one with popcorn. Will do it again.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sensorica-open-forum/dc1cb7e3-2165-404e-9c8b-f43b189816fcn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Olivier Wénin

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

Tiberius, we once created some front-page lists that were intended to be stigmergic signals, that still exist if you scroll down on http://nrp.sensorica.co/

Yes indeed, these are part of the stigmergic signaling.

 

We even presented them as stigmergic signals once in some venue that I don't remember anymore. I think "we" was you and I, but I can't remember that for sure, either.

Most probably.

Do those get used much?

I personally don't use them, which doesn't mean that they are not useful in general terms. The Mywork page also contains some.

 

In order for stigmergy to replace some of all the planning we need to do some more work and the design of such tools needs to be rooted in observations.

Stigmergy is the use of the environment to leave traces that signal what has been done and what others can do next. Let's focus on environment. Most of the collaborative work is done in a digital environment. That digital environment is made of different environments stitched together. It's like a building, with multiple rooms that have various functions (lobby, conference room, living room, dining room, kitchen, sleeping room, etc.). For stigmergy to work, these signals must be created where the action is. So when it comes to development work (R&D) the action is in Google docs. Action will self organize based on signals that are created in this specific environment. If we put signals in the NRP when people work on docs, they don't get seen, so they have no impact. People don't perform work in the NRP environment, but currently they go there to log. While logging, they can see some signals about other things that they could do or use. So at this point in time it would make more sense to place them in the process page (example), because this is what 99% of people see and probably the only thing they see, as almost no one wanders around the NRP environment.

Stigmergy must take place throughout the digital environment, in a coherent way, the signaling must match with the activity in a specific space.

Digging more on R&D, it happens in Google docs because that's an environment rich and flexible enough to contain this type of unscripted activity. I cannot see R&D happening on a structure of boxes, representing a planning done by someone. That would be over structured and very restrictive for the meandering nature of innovation. A Google doc is also mediarich, you can share text, photos, sketches and most importantly it is real time. It also has messaging integrated. It has recorded history (versioning). You can embed tables and graphs directly from Google Spreadsheets, actively linked to the source data. But one could use Miro too. Wiki could be used, but it puts non-technical people away, not very user friendly. 

Since these environments are rich and not too structured, some people can wander around. In doing so, they can trace new development paths that can be reinforced by other people who find their signaling and understand the value. That's not planning ahead, it's discovering and prioritizing as we go, it's stigmergy at work. A development path gets reinforced with activity not because someone said so in the beginning, but because some explorer discovered something new and other people understood the potential. That's also self-organization. But for that to happen, you need the flexibility so that some people wander around, you need an ability to make signals and stick them in the environment with some level of persistence, you need the ability to insert a new path into the main in order to draw more resources if it's worth anything, you need to be able to build / modify an activity map.

If planning is an activity map that one builds before the action starts, stigmergy-based development is a process that creates that activity map on the go.

It's never pure stignergy, as in reality it is never pure planning (plans always change in the process). So there's always a bit of planning in the beginning and there's always someone who picks us weak signals and projects into the future, and announces a new possible path before this path is reinforced organically by peers. That ability to predict can be an important advantage, as it can save a lot of resources for useless lateral exploration. That's not the same planner like we see in a traditional firm, who applies the same blueprint of development to any development project, based on some management theory, before the reality of the project has even expressed itself, i.r. before the project has become material. The planner in the stigmergic scenario is someone who amplifies weak signals, which means that he listens to the reality of the project and anticipates a move, almost like we drive a bike, we anticipate a fall and make some movements to maintain the equilibrium and stay on course. This planner has no blueprint to follow. He has a model of the dynamics of these types of situations though. The whole idea is to build tools for this guy and his peers.

 

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 6:04:57 PM UTC-5 Bob Haugen wrote:

Thanks again for the detailed feedback and examples. I look forward to the enhanced video. We watched the last one with popcorn. Will do it again.

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:31:30 PM UTC-5 Tiberius Brastaviceanu wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sensorica-open-forum/33462077-2106-4b7a-a280-16a6d0386193n%40googlegroups.com.