One way to resolve the tension between the larger common objectives and the individual interests of various groups could start by rallying everybody under a common label. Having many names for many things working towards the same goals create confusion in people's mind, so one issue to resolve is one of branding. Once a common label, that can exist next to the invidual brands, is accepted by everybody, then we can attach to this name a process of governance: who gets in, who gets out and how decisions are taken. I like very much the process of consensus polling, it is certainly worth giving it a try.
Collaboratively putting together such a label would be a great demonstration of the power of the larger vision. And the simple fact that this discussion is on the table is a very positive sign that this is something that can be done. On Dec 5, 9:47 am, Suresh Fernando <[email protected]> wrote: > The larger objective (as I see it) with this sort of mechanism is to define > specific workflows that can serve to connect the various groups that have > missions that are connected at a high level but that are working > independently in a manner that allows the groups to retain their autonomy. > > Specifically, OK, CoCo, Forward Foundation and the P2P Foundation are > working, at least in some sense, towards figuring out how to utilize the > principles of web 2.0, P2P architecture, open collaboration, networks etc > for social benefit. > > The operational challenge, therefore, is to ensure that we work together > collaboratively without the unrealistic assumption that we will merge our > own projects into the projects of others. We all have a vested interest in > the maintenance of what we have built and are continuing to build. > > Hence there is an inherent tension between the larger collective objectives > and our self interest in maintaining our own brands. > > The key is to recognize and embrace this, not to see it as a flaw, a failure > of collaboration or something like that. > > One way to do this this is, as Sam has suggested,* jointly connect content > across various platforms*. For example, ensure that all collaboration > related content from OK is posted to CoCo and vice versa. All P2P related > content flows back and forth from the P2P website.... > > This way, we leverage and reuse the work that we are all doing independently > and yet retain the autonomy of the various groups. > > I think this is a necessary step if we are to get groups such as the ones > represented in this discussion more closely aligned. > > Thoughts? > > Suresh > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote: > > > sounds very sensible, I will follow you on this Sam, > > > Michel > > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Howard Rheingold <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > >> I like. > > >> Howard Rheingold [email protected]http://twitter.com/hrheingold > >>http://www.rheingold.com http://www.smartmobs.com > >>http://vlog.rheingold.com > >> what it is ---> is --->up to us > > >> On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Samuel Rose wrote: > > >> If Forward Foundation creates a method for distribution, then we could > >>> partner with Michel, and P2P foundation, as well as potentially others > >>> interested, in the co-governance of the project as it lives in > >>> multiple places, but is archived in a uniform/open archive method. > > >>> Forward Foundation would be glad to take the ownership and > >>> responsibility. Both Paul and myself helped work on the site code, the > >>> summaries, and the blogging/community/etc and we're both very > >>> intimately familiar with the content within. We are also both familiar > >>> with many of the people in the community that emerged around CoCo. FF > >>> is working now on contributing more to the pool of research for CoCo > >>> as part of regular Forward Found activities. > > >>> Further growth will likely depend on multiple people, rather than just > >>> one person. I think that OK, P2P foundation, and FF could all easily > >>> partner and collaborate on co-governance of the project, on helping to > >>> grow and promote, and on growing it in distributed ways. > > >>> I propose a networked partnership between our groups, assuming all are > >>> interested, in carrying out the co-governance, promoting, growing, and > >>> creating a way to distribute the content. > > >>> So, this means that it could live on P2P wiki, OK wiki, and FF, plus a > >>> revised version of the site itself, which now aggregates from those 3 > >>> wikis, when a category is placed on a new summary, or when it is > >>> changed to type "Publish CoCo" in OK and FF, and all could be synced > >>> with an archive which itself is output in a standard archiving format. > >>> Co-governance could be handled by way of timed consensus polling of > >>> partner groups (we could establish a simple constitution first) <-- > >>> Howard could be involved in as much or little of this as he wishes. > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus_polling > > >>> Furthermore, both P2P foundation in europe, and FF in US could seek > >>> funding or donation for the ongoing maint. of CoCo and it's archives, > >>> and the added value from distributing it and making it available in > >>> multiple formats. > > >>> What do you think? > > >>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > > >>>> wherever it will be located, further growth will be dependent on someone > >>>> taking ownwership/responsibiltiy of the project, and motivating others > >>>> .. > >>>> just placing it with a general request won't lead to much further growth > >>>> I > >>>> think, > > >>>> is there such a person? > > >>>> Michel > > >>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Howard Rheingold < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> My original hope was that many people would build on our summaries and > >>>>> that the original summaries would serve as models of the level of > >>>>> quality > >>>>> we'd like to see. So, yes! > > >>>>> Howard Rheingold [email protected]http://twitter.com/hrheingold > >>>>>http://www.rheingold.com http://www.smartmobs.com > >>>>>http://vlog.rheingold.com > >>>>> what it is ---> is --->up to us > > >>>>> On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Samuel Rose wrote: > > >>>>> Could also be interesting to see people contributing summaries at p2p > >>>>>> found, and we will be doing similar summaries as forward foundation, > >>>>>> and also making those public as well. So, we as forward foundation > >>>>>> could make an archive from many participants who are contributing, and > >>>>>> also give them a way to import contributions from the network. > > >>>>>> What do you think about that? > > >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Howard Rheingold > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Thank you for your kind offer, Michel. It isn't in danger of > >>>>>>> disappearing, > >>>>>>> but I've been paying for the server for years now, and I have half a > >>>>>>> dozen > >>>>>>> such subscriptions, so I am thinking of handing it off to a more > >>>>>>> permanent > >>>>>>> home that won't depend on me renewing the hosting subscription every > >>>>>>> year. I > >>>>>>> like the idea of exportable local copies with embedded attribution. > >>>>>>> We > >>>>>>> should probably put a cc license on it right away. > > >>>>>>> There is no urgency. If Stanford doesn't step up, let's look at > >>>>>>> moving > >>>>>>> it to > >>>>>>> Sam's or your server. I was interested in the alliance with the > >>>>>>> Persuasive > >>>>>>> Technology Lab because maybe they could recruit students to add > >>>>>>> summaries > >>>>>>> and blog posts. > > >>>>>>> Howard Rheingold [email protected]http://twitter.com/hrheingold > >>>>>>>http://www.rheingold.com http://www.smartmobs.com > >>>>>>>http://vlog.rheingold.com > >>>>>>> what it is ---> is --->up to us > > >>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2009, at 3:57 AM, Samuel Rose wrote: > > >>>>>>> I don't think there is a danger of losing the actual content, as > >>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>> are many places the site/db can be hosted. Although, it could be > >>>>>>>> useful for people to have an exportable local copy (think about > >>>>>>>> things > >>>>>>>> like p2pwiki,http://thewikireader.com/ etc etc) so eventually we > >>>>>>>> could make it possible for people to import into their mediawikis, > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> other places, with embedded attribution if Howard agrees. (There is > >>>>>>>> no > >>>>>>>> declared license on the content on the site). > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Michel Bauwens > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Sam, > > >>>>>>>>> you ask how we can strengthen CoCo ... just a general statement, I > >>>>>>>>> am > >>>>>>>>> swamped myself, any cooperation is welcome as long as it aligns > >>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>> I'm already doing for p2p-f ... I have a question about the archive > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> CoCo, > >>>>>>>>> which had done so much serious work around the cooperation > >>>>>>>>> literature. > >>>>>>>>> Depending on howard's and the coco community wishes, if there is a > >>>>>>>>> danger > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> it disappearing, then certainly, I would be very open to > >>>>>>>>> incorporate > >>>>>>>>> as a > >>>>>>>>> project on the p2p-f wiki. It seems there is a natural fit, > > >>>>>>>>> Michel > > >>>>>>>>>> Howard, there could be some useful connections for whatever CoCo > >>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> the way that Open Kollab, P2P Foundation, and Forward Foundation > >>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> starting to collaborate in effective ways. At least, in terms of > >>>>>>>>>> ongoing research, maintaining of open knowledge bases, etc. > > >>>>>>>>>> We are refining and improving weekly the way that we all work > >>>>>>>>>> together. It would be really awesome to figure out how to > >>>>>>>>>> efficiently > >>>>>>>>>> and usefully integrate CoCo into this emerging ecology. > > >>>>>>>>>> Many of us met in CoCo list, and we are now really seriously > >>>>>>>>>> digging > >>>>>>>>>> into some worthwhile projects and collaborations, and synthesizing > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> workflows. So, I agree with Matt that CoCo as project or community > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> definitely missed here. > > >>>>>>>>>> c> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Matt Cooperrider > >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> just thinking about CoCo after Marc Dangeard's recent post there. > >>>>>>>>>>> Howard > >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned he's got a new partnership/funding opportunity to > >>>>>>>>>>> reboot > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
