On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:32:29PM -0400, Stephan Dohrn wrote: > If you look at this through a Community-of-Practice lense you would probably > try to build a core group that drives, coordinates and enforces. Nancy will > know better whether these groups just 'happen' or are actively created, but > I would guess that in a lot of cases people self-select into the core group. > If it stays open for others, then the regular members consent to giving that > core power by not participating in it.
I'll be looking forward to Nancy's input. It's a recurring question for me, kind of a text/context, foreground/background delineation question. Taking p2p file-sharing as an example, there is an assumption of shared protocols, be it tcp/ip or otherwise. The "central authority" is provided by the technological/social substrate or by the project initiators or by the attributes which define the community (practice or otherwise) but there is always something which lends structure. (Clearly, "central authority" ceases to be a valuable term here, but I'm stuck at the moment, "perceptually fixed" as my tribe used to say, and looking quite forward to someone selling me on a better term.) rl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CooperationCommons" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CooperationCommons?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
