yes Lynn, just replied in relation to your points! thanks
> On 18 feb. 2015, at 16:57, Lynn Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > > To add to Bob's comment: > > Although we don't want to create our own reputation system, it is true, as > Orsan suggests, that the data entered into the NRP as people collaborate to > do their work and log their contributions, can be a real-life input to a > reputation system. For example, you can see did someone deliver when > promised; what was the quality of someone's work as someone else uses that > work; etc. > > Regarding connecting to currencies, we don't currently have any direct > interfaces, but that could be done if and when needed. The system now > supports any currency or type of currency or barter or whatever - but not an > automated interface. > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sensorica really wants a reputation system. We don''t want to build >> one. An affiliate of Sensorica has been working on one for a few years >> and thinks he can get ready this year some time, so we're hoping to >> use his. >> >> Beyond that, I am skeptical about reputation systems. I think they >> will be easily gamed and people will spend their time building >> reputations instead of anything useful. Like chasing twitter >> followers. But I do understand why people want them... >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thanks for the clarification Bob. I some how have growing feeling that the >> > stage 2 is coming closer, hope you/we could make it soon. >> > >> > ps. after the recent discussions on the currency issue, also external >> > discussions i entered outside on the role of the repetitional systems, I >> > suddenly started to think about possible use of the open value network, or >> > more specifically NRP, also as an open reputation building system, in or >> > through which the function of money can be embedded in the tool. Like >> > using the labour value added in the production which is being traced via >> > the tool you have been developing, directly as a trust based money to >> > facilitate the exchanges within the network. Would this make sense to you >> > and others, like if it is linked to fair.coin or fiat currencies with an >> > interface like structure? >> > >> > orsan >> > >> > >> > >> >> On 16 feb. 2015, at 14:07, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I just wanted to clarify that our goals (Mikorizal) are: >> >> 1) first, to figure out the form and behavior (model and logic) for an >> >> open value network operating system, which is not yet finished, and >> >> 2 then (in parallel), collaborate with other people to standardize the >> >> model in the format of Linked Open Data and break the model and logic >> >> into smaller components developed by different people. As that stage >> >> becomes workable, it will supercede our current software. >> >> That effort has begun here, but proceeds slowly: >> >> https://github.com/openvocab/ovn >> >> >> >> We'll keep the current software alive as long as people are still >> >> using it and we are able to do so. But we really want stage 2. >> >> >> >> We are old people, we can't do all that needs to be done, and we want >> >> to work ourselves out of programming jobs. And we don't want a >> >> product. >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> I agree Anna, and also with Bob's and Tiberius' responses. >> >>> >> >>> In the Commons Transition website and books now we have already sets of >> >>> alternative putting concrete proposals for transition through policy >> >>> changes, but also movement and polity building perspectives. These >> >>> provide a >> >>> good and solid base to start taking the discussions further, in order to >> >>> develop existing practical and analytical visions provided. This should >> >>> happen bottom up. And for this what is crucial is to ceate autonomous and >> >>> horizontal spaces where grassroots inventors from different networks can >> >>> work out together, with but independent from generalizing theorists, >> >>> strategists, and funders. This is crucial to be able to go on inventing >> >>> and >> >>> adding value on top the provided visions of transition. So creative >> >>> development of strategies can be developed through wiki like >> >>> modifications, >> >>> or forking that provide totally different alternatives. So either, as >> >>> Tiberius suggest, integrating people and tools that would function and >> >>> covering the points you raise Anna, or based on the insights provided >> >>> building a new vision or practice is possible. >> >>> >> >>> Again, what is really crucial in my humble opinion, is the fact that >> >>> there >> >>> has been intensifying convergences between many networks, ideas, >> >>> research, >> >>> practice and analyses, also between policy and action based approaches. >> >>> This >> >>> made individual and collective contributions merge to create an emerging >> >>> picture of integrated networks of networks, in a way has the potential to >> >>> grow over and dominate the existing mode of production. >> >>> >> >>> This has been happening exactly in parallel to the intensified good and >> >>> bad >> >>> happenings, as in greece, Spain, and Syria/Iraq/Ukraine, Asia-pasific, >> >>> Africa and cyberia, with the unfolding of the systemic crisis. The >> >>> challenge >> >>> is now to make this happen: to practically work on networking variety of >> >>> alternative modes of associated production, which are addressing similar >> >>> tools and dynamics, cultures and so on, in a way reaching specific social >> >>> purposes and targets become possible. Thinking of how to integrate tools >> >>> and >> >>> networks of Sensorica, cic, faircoop, mikorizal, gnlu, edu-factory, >> >>> schools >> >>> of commons, social strike,.. >> >>> >> >>> As Tiberius said, not everything will become parts of a universal machine >> >>> like system, but a live and complex living organism that is part of >> >>> Gaia, or >> >>> cosmos we are part of. We won't all use Mikroizal, but might chose to >> >>> modularly integrate various aspects, like production, learning, coop >> >>> exchange, p2p insurance, so on of various alternatives to each other... >> >>> while some of these forms focus on individual and enterprise, when >> >>> implementing tools to network, others will focus on workers, some coops, >> >>> elderly, children, land, money... Still not sure if it would work.. >> >>> >> >>> Yet one thing is sure, form the history, that created Lenin's, Stalin's, >> >>> and >> >>> many other elements of what Bogdanov called the >> >>> "IntermediaryIntelligentsia" >> >>> >> >>> "As early as 1906, in the third volume of his seminal work. >> >>> Empiriomonizm, >> >>> Bogdanov had certainly admitted the possibility that "in certain >> >>> conditions" >> >>> the "ideologues" of society might themselves acquire the status of an >> >>> "organizing class" which would rule over the masses. However, in other >> >>> works >> >>> published before 1917 he had asked whether under capitalism the >> >>> intelligentsia might acquire such a status and his answer had been in the >> >>> negative. At most, he acknowledged that in certain historical periods >> >>> when >> >>> relations between competing social classes were in a state of equilibrium >> >>> the intelligentsia might assert itself as an independent social >> >>> group,"above >> >>> class,"and he cited the example of the liberal faction aroundLe National >> >>> in >> >>> France in the 1840s, that of the "Legal Populists" in Russia during the >> >>> 1890s, and that of the "Liberationists"of the 1900s. For Bogdanov, as a >> >>> rule, however: The intermediary intelligentsia groups of society work >> >>> ideologically not for themselves but for others and so they can in no way >> >>> act as a determining force in pursuing the cultural tasks of our time." >> >>> >> >>> Based on the above insight, taken form Bogdanov, I think it is really >> >>> crucial that the working people, peer producers, commoners, who has the >> >>> practical and intellectual ability to unify their mental and manual work, >> >>> strategic and practical creative and innovative skills to determine how >> >>> to >> >>> design and realize the transition will take place. That is why I believe >> >>> it >> >>> is crucial not only for intellectuals, even for the sake of ruling >> >>> classes' >> >>> survival, we emphasis verbally and action wise the importance of networks >> >>> and classes being the creators and vanguards of their own present and >> >>> future >> >>> politics. That is why we need to give special care and attention to >> >>> create >> >>> enabling spaces, channels, and tools for further empowerment of these >> >>> alternatives and every potential individual who is needed to join and and >> >>> give a hand in such empowerment by empowering themselves. >> >>> >> >>> Again as Tiberius calls, involvement of people like you, me, and all >> >>> others >> >>> in developing, designing, and implementing tools like Sensorica, >> >>> faircoop, >> >>> Mikroizal, GNLU, global square... is the thing. Any support from >> >>> intermeridate intelligentsia, enabling ngos, civil society, partner >> >>> state or >> >>> other institutional perspectives are and can be really helpful to realize >> >>> the transition, but as a secondary contribution. If we see the latter >> >>> more >> >>> important it means we already started to create possible future ruling >> >>> classes. >> >>> >> >>> Orsan >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 15 Feb 2015, at 15:41, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> It is interesting to see the link between Sensorica as presented by >> >>> Tiberius, and the article sent in by Francine Maestrum. As I understand >> >>> it, >> >>> Sensorica allows people to claim all the value they contribute, including >> >>> adjustments for reputation, through a value equation, endorsed by all >> >>> participants. Very appealing for those who have something to contribute, >> >>> and >> >>> offers an alternative to the capitalist economy which thrives on >> >>> extracting >> >>> surplus value. >> >>> >> >>> Francine is wanting to provide for those who for whatever reason can't >> >>> contribute as part of that innovative model of production. And perhaps we >> >>> should ask - shouldn't that be part of the model? What happens in >> >>> Sensorica >> >>> when there is sickness or accidents? Child care? Elderly relatives? Need >> >>> a >> >>> holiday? Those with disabilities? Perhaps this was mentioned and I missed >> >>> it. 'Fairness' is not as simple as an algorithm which rewards on the >> >>> basis >> >>> of contribution. Some may benefit If they remain fit and well. But it >> >>> seems >> >>> pretty precarious if there is no support to fall back on when they are >> >>> not. >> >>> >> >>> Calling something a commons doesn't just mean that something is >> >>> available to >> >>> all, it also means making sure that people have the ability to take >> >>> advantage of that availability. In this new society we have to find a >> >>> way to >> >>> care for each other to ensure that we don't just reproduce a system which >> >>> enables some to prosper, while others suffer. >> >>> >> >>> Anna >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 13 Feb 2015, at 21:45, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks Bob! >> >>> >> >>> We were discussing manual-mental labour division, thinkers and doers, >> >>> economy and politics. I just want to recommend everyone to take time and >> >>> look in to Mikorizal and watch the below video, from Tiberius of >> >>> Sensorica. >> >>> >> >>> http://mikorizal.org/groups.html >> >>> >> >>> http://youtu.be/Ixgp8_B9g5A >> >>> >> >>> Direction of possible fusion between open value networking, open coops, >> >>> like >> >>> fair.coop, multi stakeholder cooperatives and the unionism I have been >> >>> promoting bears the potential of overcoming those divisions. we better >> >>> get >> >>> ready for the scaling up of unifying political-economies in form of >> >>> polity >> >>> as well. If Syriza can find a way to facilitate such transformation it >> >>> has a >> >>> chance. Podemos in Spain is closer, though both have some disadvantages. >> >>> In >> >>> case they can envisage and open a path to, some thing can be called, >> >>> Internet of Emancipatory Everything we might have a chance to stand >> >>> together >> >>> before both big capitalist class or rising dark Internet of Everything as >> >>> the latest stage of capitalism. >> >>> >> >>> Orsan >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
