Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [decentralization] Groove centralizes

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Very interesting story. Centralization is valid as are decentralized networks. This little workgroup we have is both centralized and decentralized, if you pick
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Very interesting story.

      Centralization is valid as are decentralized networks.

      This little workgroup we have is both centralized and decentralized, if you
      pick it up from different corners.

      It's centralized in that we're all using a central server to route messages
      between participants.

      It's decentralized in that you and I work for different companies, and you
      can't see everything on my hard drive (I hope!) only what I choose to share
      with you.

      If we worked at the same company this might not apply.

      What I would conclude from this story follows:

      1. Groove has decided to stop trying to go in through the back door.

      2. To get a Groove network going the IT people participate in the
      implementation, even drive the implementation.

      Dave


      > Does this hurt the viability of decentralized systems in the
      > corporate landscape?
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Michael Herman (Parallelspace)
      Before this spins out of control, the title of this article is misleading. Nothing has changed in the Groove mediated P2P platform architecture. This article
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Before this spins out of control, the title of this article is
        misleading.

        Nothing has changed in the Groove mediated P2P platform architecture.
        This article is the result of some new PR around the beta availability
        of 3 Groove enterprise server products that announced previously:

        * Groove Enterprise Integration Server, formally know as the "bot
        server" - beta now
        * Groove Relay Server, allowing enterprises to host internally - beta
        now
        * Groove Enterprise Management Server, related the Enterprise Network
        Services offering and including LDAP integration with corporate
        directory services - beta January 2002


        Checkout http://www.groove.net/about/press/releases/2001_servers.html.


        Cheers,
        Michael Herman
        CTO, Parallelspace Corporation
        http://www.parallelspace.net/groove



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Scott Hodson [mailto:scott@...]
        Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 10:45 AM
        To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [decentralization] Groove centralizes


        http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO65038,00.html

        I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all
        of their user's PCs and is used to having things centralized where
        they can control and monitor them.

        Does this hurt the viability of decentralized systems in the
        corporate landscape?


        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Hugh Pyle
        ... their user s PCs Groove s central services don t manage content. The content is at the edges, where people need it. The relay and the bot server manage
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment

          > I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all of their user's PCs

          Groove's central services don't manage content.  The content is at the edges, where people need it.

          The relay and the "bot server" manage connectivity.
          Of course there's usually plenty of connectivity at the edges (peer, to peer).  Unless you have a firewall between the users.  In which case,
          - the relay service does "device presence" and message-queue store-and-forward connectivity between peer devices;  you might want one in your DMZ to make the most effective connections to the outside world.
          - the enterprise integration server gives you a single (ie. manageable) place to put connectivity between systems;  you probably want some integration (eg. to Palm) at the edge, but other (eg. to SAP) in the center.

          Last piece is the management service, whcih gives you a single place to set policies & monitor resources, licenses, usage etc.


          Hugh
        • Michael Herman (Parallelspace)
          There is a concept developing that I m tempted to refer to as edge-based servers or near-edge servers that is different from traditional P2P clients that
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Message
            There is a concept developing that I'm tempted to refer to as "edge-based servers" or "near-edge servers" that is different from traditional P2P clients that perform local storage and computation in a P2P network context.
             
            This is based on recent discussions about the photo web site example, P2P document management, etc. where decentralized technologies can be used to create an new distributed file system environment that logically appears to run very near the edge of the network but "just behind" my P2P client.  Of course, this logical view doesn't preclude the physical possibility that subsets of the content may actually live on my personal machine.
             
            That is, I find it useful to think of my machine as both a P2P client and as a differentiated near-edge server.
             
            Cheers,
            Michael Herman
            CTO, Parallelspace Corporation
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Hugh Pyle [mailto:hpyle@...]
            Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:05 AM
            To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [decentralization] Groove centralizes


            > I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all of their user's PCs

            Groove's central services don't manage content.  The content is at the edges, where people need it.

            The relay and the "bot server" manage connectivity.
            Of course there's usually plenty of connectivity at the edges (peer, to peer).  Unless you have a firewall between the users.  In which case,
            - the relay service does "device presence" and message-queue store-and-forward connectivity between peer devices;  you might want one in your DMZ to make the most effective connections to the outside world.
            - the enterprise integration server gives you a single (ie. manageable) place to put connectivity between systems;  you probably want some integration (eg. to Palm) at the edge, but other (eg. to SAP) in the center.

            Last piece is the management service, whcih gives you a single place to set policies & monitor resources, licenses, usage etc.


            Hugh
            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • Tony Kimball
            ... No, it improves the viability. Users do in fact have content strewn about the network -- not only content, but other valuable resources as well, such as
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Quoth Scott Hodson on Thursday, 1 November:
              : http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO65038,00.html
              :
              : I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all
              : of their user's PCs and is used to having things centralized where
              : they can control and monitor them.
              :
              : Does this hurt the viability of decentralized systems in the
              : corporate landscape?

              No, it improves the viability. Users do in fact have content strewn
              about the network -- not only content, but other valuable resources as
              well, such as devices, metadata, bandwidth, etc., Decentralized
              systems can harness that content, and make it usable as an enterprise
              resource, thus creating new managable asset.
            • Todd Boyle
              At 09:31 AM 11/1/01, Tony Kimball wrote to Scott, ... Corporations are command and control systems, of a type that have been thoroughly and completely rejected
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09:31 AM 11/1/01, Tony Kimball wrote to Scott,
                >: http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO65038,00.html
                >:
                >: I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all
                >: of their user's PCs and is used to having things centralized where
                >: they can control and monitor them.
                >:
                >: Does this hurt the viability of decentralized systems in the
                >: corporate landscape?
                >
                >No, it improves the viability. Users do in fact have content strewn
                >about the network -- not only content, but other valuable resources as
                >well, such as devices, metadata, bandwidth, etc., Decentralized
                >systems can harness that content, and make it usable as an enterprise
                >resource, thus creating new managable asset.

                Corporations are command and control systems, of a type that
                have been thoroughly and completely rejected by the populations
                of every country on earth by now. Governments such as the soviet
                union were spectacular failures.

                Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open
                marketplaces function, within democratic society?

                When developers understand the answer to this question,
                they will be more likely to write P2P software instead of
                ever-more-powerful command and control systems.

                Corporations operate completely differently from civil society, to
                achieve greater logistical efficiency, reliability and information
                dissemination by controlling the behaviors of members, all
                that stuff -- we have networks and computers and collaboration
                software for these things today. Let's use them, to compete
                as freemen instead of slaves. Freemen are always more
                efficient than command systems. We'll make good money.

                Todd

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/1819
                ...types of decentralization, these are independent dimensions:

                - the data,
                - pointers and indexes to the data,
                - other metadata i.e. useful metadata like document schemas,
                - the encryption keys and certificates,
                - routes taken by data content across networks (P2P variations),
                - routes taken by the pointing, indexing, metadata information,
                - incentive topology ($ Corp, $hierarchic/MLM, $peer, mojo, volunteer...)
                - capital structure (pooled/central, decentralized, or hierarch. steps)
                - political and social rulemaking topology /hierarchy,
                - actual technical control (actual sovereignty)
                - content creation (added by Mitra)
              • Halim Cho
                ... Two words: legal liability corporations work under the onus of being liable for what freemen do with their systems, so they cover their legal
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Todd Boyle <tboyle@...> wrote:
                  > Corporations are command and control systems, of a
                  > type that
                  > have been thoroughly and completely rejected by the
                  > populations
                  > of every country on earth by now. Governments such
                  > as the soviet
                  > union were spectacular failures.
                  >
                  > Why do corporations work completely differently from
                  > the way open
                  > marketplaces function, within democratic society?
                  >
                  > When developers understand the answer to this
                  > question,
                  > they will be more likely to write P2P software
                  > instead of
                  > ever-more-powerful command and control systems.

                  Two words: legal liability

                  corporations work under the onus of being liable for
                  what "freemen" do with "their" systems, so they cover
                  their legal liability by setting up controlled
                  systems.



                  =====
                  Halim Cho
                  "Computers are a lot like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy."

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
                  http://personals.yahoo.com
                • Lucas Gonze
                  ... One reason why technical decentralization fits Internet scale is that social structures at that scale are also decentralized. At smaller scales it should
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    per Todd:
                    > > Why do corporations work completely differently from
                    > > the way open
                    > > marketplaces function, within democratic society?

                    One reason why technical decentralization fits Internet scale is that social
                    structures at that scale are also decentralized. At smaller scales it should be
                    possible for software to follow, rather than dictate, social structures. In a
                    family, for example, software should enable parents to have the same online
                    relationship with their children as they do offline.

                    Culturally, corporations aren't open marketplaces. There is a fair amount of
                    internal competition, even to the degree that the corporation's interests are
                    sacrificed to individual employees' interests, but that doesn't make it a full
                    agora. Seems to me that experts on corporate culture would have useful comments
                    on exactly what are the social structures that modern software should be
                    enabling.

                    - Lucas
                  • Rikard Linde
                    ... Indeed. Or disabling. Rikard __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Lucas Gonze <lucas@...> wrote:
                      > Culturally, corporations aren't open marketplaces.
                      > There is a fair amount of
                      > internal competition, even to the degree that the
                      > corporation's interests are
                      > sacrificed to individual employees' interests, but
                      > that doesn't make it a full
                      > agora. Seems to me that experts on corporate
                      > culture would have useful comments
                      > on exactly what are the social structures that
                      > modern software should be
                      > enabling.

                      Indeed. Or disabling.

                      Rikard

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Find a job, post your resume.
                      http://careers.yahoo.com
                    • cefn.hoile@bt.com
                      From Todd: Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open marketplaces function, within democratic society? There is some interesting
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 2, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From Todd: "Why do corporations work completely differently from the
                        way open marketplaces function, within democratic society?"

                        There is some interesting commentary in this area in the book 'The economic
                        nature of the firm' (Louis Putterman ed.). The question is asked, why is the
                        market/resource-constrained dynamic not used _within_ firms as a means of
                        control? In other words, why are firms using command and control everywhere
                        we look, and why are they not displaced by firms using market dynamics
                        internally if its so efficient?

                        Sadly I can't find my copy right now, otherwise I could give you some chunks
                        from it.

                        Anyway, the reference is available from...

                        http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521556287/o/qid=1004695081/sr=8-1/
                        ref=sr_aps_b_1_1/202-7499022-5179008

                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Todd Boyle [SMTP:tboyle@...]
                        > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:43 PM
                        > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [decentralization] Groove centralizes
                        >
                        > At 09:31 AM 11/1/01, Tony Kimball wrote to Scott,
                        > >: http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO65038,00.html
                        > >:
                        > >: I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all
                        > >: of their user's PCs and is used to having things centralized where
                        > >: they can control and monitor them.
                        > >:
                        > >: Does this hurt the viability of decentralized systems in the
                        > >: corporate landscape?
                        > >
                        > >No, it improves the viability. Users do in fact have content strewn
                        > >about the network -- not only content, but other valuable resources as
                        > >well, such as devices, metadata, bandwidth, etc., Decentralized
                        > >systems can harness that content, and make it usable as an enterprise
                        > >resource, thus creating new managable asset.
                        >
                        > Corporations are command and control systems, of a type that
                        > have been thoroughly and completely rejected by the populations
                        > of every country on earth by now. Governments such as the soviet
                        > union were spectacular failures.
                        >
                        > Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open
                        > marketplaces function, within democratic society?
                        >
                        > When developers understand the answer to this question,
                        > they will be more likely to write P2P software instead of
                        > ever-more-powerful command and control systems.
                        >
                        > Corporations operate completely differently from civil society, to
                        > achieve greater logistical efficiency, reliability and information
                        > dissemination by controlling the behaviors of members, all
                        > that stuff -- we have networks and computers and collaboration
                        > software for these things today. Let's use them, to compete
                        > as freemen instead of slaves. Freemen are always more
                        > efficient than command systems. We'll make good money.
                        >
                        > Todd
                        >
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/1819
                        > ...types of decentralization, these are independent dimensions:
                        >
                        > - the data,
                        > - pointers and indexes to the data,
                        > - other metadata i.e. useful metadata like document schemas,
                        > - the encryption keys and certificates,
                        > - routes taken by data content across networks (P2P variations),
                        > - routes taken by the pointing, indexing, metadata information,
                        > - incentive topology ($ Corp, $hierarchic/MLM, $peer, mojo, volunteer...)
                        > - capital structure (pooled/central, decentralized, or hierarch. steps)
                        > - political and social rulemaking topology /hierarchy,
                        > - actual technical control (actual sovereignty)
                        > - content creation (added by Mitra)
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                      • Jason L. Asbahr
                        Interesting point. I think open source organizations do operate more in the marketplace mode, and in some cases, do show increased operational efficiency.
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 2, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Interesting point. I think open source organizations do operate
                          more in the marketplace mode, and in some cases, do show increased
                          operational efficiency. (Please note, I'm not talking about your
                          average group of 15 year olds writing yet another unfinished version
                          of AIM, I'm talking about those collaborative efforts that continue
                          to produce high quality software over the span of years, Python, Perl,
                          the Linux kernel group, and Apache as the highest profile examples.)

                          Another example is the "chaordic" model of organization, which
                          was the model used by Visa and some claim the reason for its rapid
                          worldwide growth. Dee Hock has a couple of books out about this
                          concept, one of the more recent (and apparently lighter ones):

                          Birth of the Chaordic Age
                          by Dee W. Hock
                          http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576750744/learningorg

                          "He looks critically at today's environment of command-and-control
                          institutions and sees organizations that are falling apart, failing
                          to achieve their own purposes let alone addressing the diversity and
                          complexity of society as a whole. The solution, Hock claims, lies in
                          transforming our notion of organization; in embracing the belief that
                          the chaos of competition and the order of cooperation can and do coexist,
                          succeed, even thrive; and in welcoming in the chaordic age."

                          Cheers,

                          Jason




                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: cefn.hoile@... [mailto:cefn.hoile@...]
                          Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:07 AM
                          To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [decentralization] Groove centralizes


                          From Todd: "Why do corporations work completely differently from the
                          way open marketplaces function, within democratic society?"

                          There is some interesting commentary in this area in the book 'The economic
                          nature of the firm' (Louis Putterman ed.). The question is asked, why is the
                          market/resource-constrained dynamic not used _within_ firms as a means of
                          control? In other words, why are firms using command and control everywhere
                          we look, and why are they not displaced by firms using market dynamics
                          internally if its so efficient?

                          Sadly I can't find my copy right now, otherwise I could give you some chunks
                          from it.

                          Anyway, the reference is available from...

                          http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521556287/o/qid=1004695081/sr=8-1/
                          ref=sr_aps_b_1_1/202-7499022-5179008

                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Todd Boyle [SMTP:tboyle@...]
                          > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:43 PM
                          > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: Re: [decentralization] Groove centralizes
                          >
                          > At 09:31 AM 11/1/01, Tony Kimball wrote to Scott,
                          > >: http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO65038,00.html
                          > >:
                          > >: I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all
                          > >: of their user's PCs and is used to having things centralized where
                          > >: they can control and monitor them.
                          > >:
                          > >: Does this hurt the viability of decentralized systems in the
                          > >: corporate landscape?
                          > >
                          > >No, it improves the viability. Users do in fact have content strewn
                          > >about the network -- not only content, but other valuable resources as
                          > >well, such as devices, metadata, bandwidth, etc., Decentralized
                          > >systems can harness that content, and make it usable as an enterprise
                          > >resource, thus creating new managable asset.
                          >
                          > Corporations are command and control systems, of a type that
                          > have been thoroughly and completely rejected by the populations
                          > of every country on earth by now. Governments such as the soviet
                          > union were spectacular failures.
                          >
                          > Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open
                          > marketplaces function, within democratic society?
                          >
                          > When developers understand the answer to this question,
                          > they will be more likely to write P2P software instead of
                          > ever-more-powerful command and control systems.
                          >
                          > Corporations operate completely differently from civil society, to
                          > achieve greater logistical efficiency, reliability and information
                          > dissemination by controlling the behaviors of members, all
                          > that stuff -- we have networks and computers and collaboration
                          > software for these things today. Let's use them, to compete
                          > as freemen instead of slaves. Freemen are always more
                          > efficient than command systems. We'll make good money.
                          >
                          > Todd
                          >
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/1819
                          > ...types of decentralization, these are independent dimensions:
                          >
                          > - the data,
                          > - pointers and indexes to the data,
                          > - other metadata i.e. useful metadata like document schemas,
                          > - the encryption keys and certificates,
                          > - routes taken by data content across networks (P2P variations),
                          > - routes taken by the pointing, indexing, metadata information,
                          > - incentive topology ($ Corp, $hierarchic/MLM, $peer, mojo, volunteer...)
                          > - capital structure (pooled/central, decentralized, or hierarch. steps)
                          > - political and social rulemaking topology /hierarchy,
                          > - actual technical control (actual sovereignty)
                          > - content creation (added by Mitra)
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >

                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • John D. Mitchell
                          ... [...] ... Methinks that you re missing the historical, corporate evolution factor here. Historically, C&C has worked exceptionally well for the types of
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 2, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >>>>> "Todd" == Todd Boyle <tboyle@...> writes:
                            [...]
                            > Corporations are command and control systems, of a type that have been
                            > thoroughly and completely rejected by the populations of every country on
                            > earth by now. Governments such as the soviet union were spectacular
                            > failures.

                            > Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open
                            > marketplaces function, within democratic society?

                            > When developers understand the answer to this question, they will be more
                            > likely to write P2P software instead of ever-more-powerful command and
                            > control systems.

                            > Corporations operate completely differently from civil society, to
                            > achieve greater logistical efficiency, reliability and information
                            > dissemination by controlling the behaviors of members, all that stuff --
                            > we have networks and computers and collaboration software for these
                            > things today. Let's use them, to compete as freemen instead of slaves.
                            > Freemen are always more efficient than command systems. We'll make good
                            > money.

                            Methinks that you're missing the historical, corporate evolution factor
                            here. Historically, C&C has worked exceptionally well for the types of
                            corporations that existed and the context in which they operated. The
                            critical decision making in those corporations fit because the workers were
                            predominantly just cogs in a operational-execution-efficiency-maximizing
                            Taylor-ite machine.

                            For examples, both Rockefeller and Ford quite sanely created and exploited
                            those efficiencies in their creation of completely vertically-integrated
                            organizations.

                            That sort of Taylor-istic perspective is increasingly marginalized/subsumed
                            (but not eliminated!) in proportion to the shift in importance of
                            informational and, more critically, decision-making
                            distribution/decentralization through organizations.

                            Corporations are (slowly) adapting to this. I find it fascinating how the
                            entire Supply-Chain Management (SCM) world has been created to reintegrate
                            what was (sometimes forcibly) dis-integrated not all that long ago.


                            W.r.t. the free-persons vs slaves shme, a couple of points...

                            Most people have (to varying degrees) a strong desire/need for "stability"
                            (of all sorts). Markets are, by nature, volatile. Corporate jobs (and
                            government sinecure, sigh), for many people, usually provide a sufficient
                            amount of stability. I.e., they are making a decision to tradeoff some
                            amount of "slavery" in return for that stability.

                            [The scariest thing about the 9/11 stuff is the headlong rush that so many
                            are in to give up all of our constitutional liberties in the futile attempt
                            to restore some (predominantly emotional) sense of (pseudo-)security.]

                            Markets are not (always/usually) symmetrical. Check out the latest batch
                            of Nobel prize winners in economics for various takes on the asymmetry of
                            markets. Also, think about monopolistic power such as MS's and how that
                            creates a distorted/asymmetrical market.

                            [A problem with the US legal system is that, even worse then generals
                            always trying to fight the previous war, the legal system is so completely
                            built-upon precedent that they often calcify a specific response to a
                            specifc problem within a specific context into general law. Think about
                            patterns and refactoring.]


                            Combine those two with various illogical/non-rational ways that most people
                            actually make decisions and you end up being able to explain many of the
                            so-called paradoxes of classical economics. One of those Nobel guys
                            examined used-cars markets. Personally, I find the whole fad of
                            reverse-auction markets even more telling (at least w.r.t. us geeks :-).

                            Take care,
                            John
                          • cefn.hoile@bt.com
                            Thanks, Jason. I will make the effort to look at this book. It sounds right up my street. Another interesting case of the emergence of Market economies from
                            Message 13 of 15 , Nov 6, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks, Jason. I will make the effort to look at this book. It sounds right
                              up my street.

                              Another interesting case of the emergence of Market economies from within
                              strict command and control structures exists in Eastern Europe....

                              "The countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union had a decidedly
                              non-emergent, non-self-organized dictatorial socialism imposed upon them,
                              first in 1917 and then in 1945. Starting in the early 1990s, they again were
                              forced into a new form of social organization, what David Stark called a
                              "designer capitalism". Neither form of utopian social engineering met with
                              success. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that to the extent that any
                              part of these economies works, it was not consciously designed, either by
                              the apparatchiks of Gosplan (the Soviet Planning Commission) or by the
                              professors from Harvard or other western institutions, but grew without
                              anyone really guiding it or realizing what they were doing."

                              From...

                              http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletin-winter99/emergenc
                              e2.html

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Jason L. Asbahr [mailto:jasbahr@...]
                              Sent: 02 November 2001 18:49
                              To: decentralization
                              Subject: RE: [decentralization] Groove centralizes



                              Interesting point. I think open source organizations do operate
                              more in the marketplace mode, and in some cases, do show increased
                              operational efficiency. (Please note, I'm not talking about your
                              average group of 15 year olds writing yet another unfinished version
                              of AIM, I'm talking about those collaborative efforts that continue
                              to produce high quality software over the span of years, Python, Perl,
                              the Linux kernel group, and Apache as the highest profile examples.)

                              Another example is the "chaordic" model of organization, which
                              was the model used by Visa and some claim the reason for its rapid
                              worldwide growth. Dee Hock has a couple of books out about this
                              concept, one of the more recent (and apparently lighter ones):

                              Birth of the Chaordic Age
                              by Dee W. Hock
                              http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576750744/learningorg

                              "He looks critically at today's environment of command-and-control
                              institutions and sees organizations that are falling apart, failing
                              to achieve their own purposes let alone addressing the diversity and
                              complexity of society as a whole. The solution, Hock claims, lies in
                              transforming our notion of organization; in embracing the belief that
                              the chaos of competition and the order of cooperation can and do coexist,
                              succeed, even thrive; and in welcoming in the chaordic age."

                              Cheers,

                              Jason




                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: cefn.hoile@... [mailto:cefn.hoile@...]
                              Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:07 AM
                              To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [decentralization] Groove centralizes


                              From Todd: "Why do corporations work completely differently from the
                              way open marketplaces function, within democratic society?"

                              There is some interesting commentary in this area in the book 'The economic
                              nature of the firm' (Louis Putterman ed.). The question is asked, why is the
                              market/resource-constrained dynamic not used _within_ firms as a means of
                              control? In other words, why are firms using command and control everywhere
                              we look, and why are they not displaced by firms using market dynamics
                              internally if its so efficient?

                              Sadly I can't find my copy right now, otherwise I could give you some chunks
                              from it.

                              Anyway, the reference is available from...

                              http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521556287/o/qid=1004695081/sr=8-1/
                              ref=sr_aps_b_1_1/202-7499022-5179008

                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: Todd Boyle [SMTP:tboyle@...]
                              > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:43 PM
                              > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [decentralization] Groove centralizes
                              >
                              > At 09:31 AM 11/1/01, Tony Kimball wrote to Scott,
                              > >: http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO65038,00.html
                              > >:
                              > >: I don't think corporations like having content strewn out across all
                              > >: of their user's PCs and is used to having things centralized where
                              > >: they can control and monitor them.
                              > >:
                              > >: Does this hurt the viability of decentralized systems in the
                              > >: corporate landscape?
                              > >
                              > >No, it improves the viability. Users do in fact have content strewn
                              > >about the network -- not only content, but other valuable resources as
                              > >well, such as devices, metadata, bandwidth, etc., Decentralized
                              > >systems can harness that content, and make it usable as an enterprise
                              > >resource, thus creating new managable asset.
                              >
                              > Corporations are command and control systems, of a type that
                              > have been thoroughly and completely rejected by the populations
                              > of every country on earth by now. Governments such as the soviet
                              > union were spectacular failures.
                              >
                              > Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open
                              > marketplaces function, within democratic society?
                              >
                              > When developers understand the answer to this question,
                              > they will be more likely to write P2P software instead of
                              > ever-more-powerful command and control systems.
                              >
                              > Corporations operate completely differently from civil society, to
                              > achieve greater logistical efficiency, reliability and information
                              > dissemination by controlling the behaviors of members, all
                              > that stuff -- we have networks and computers and collaboration
                              > software for these things today. Let's use them, to compete
                              > as freemen instead of slaves. Freemen are always more
                              > efficient than command systems. We'll make good money.
                              >
                              > Todd
                              >
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/1819
                              > ...types of decentralization, these are independent dimensions:
                              >
                              > - the data,
                              > - pointers and indexes to the data,
                              > - other metadata i.e. useful metadata like document schemas,
                              > - the encryption keys and certificates,
                              > - routes taken by data content across networks (P2P variations),
                              > - routes taken by the pointing, indexing, metadata information,
                              > - incentive topology ($ Corp, $hierarchic/MLM, $peer, mojo, volunteer...)
                              > - capital structure (pooled/central, decentralized, or hierarch. steps)
                              > - political and social rulemaking topology /hierarchy,
                              > - actual technical control (actual sovereignty)
                              > - content creation (added by Mitra)
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >

                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            • Sampo Syreeni
                              ... I d say because freedom only works as long as the collective good coincides with what is best for each individual separately. When this is not the case, we
                              Message 14 of 15 , Nov 6, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Todd Boyle wrote:

                                >Why do corporations work completely differently from the way open
                                >marketplaces function, within democratic society?

                                I'd say because freedom only works as long as the collective good
                                coincides with what is best for each individual separately. When this is
                                not the case, we speak about a tragedy of the commons. When it arises, it
                                is usually solved via ownership. My theory is that this is what
                                corporations are (or should be) about: they solve some particular instance
                                of the tragedy of the commons on the marketplace, and so cannot function
                                based on competition alone. Of course, competition and market based
                                optimization are a valuable asset, too, which is why companies use
                                internal billing, subcontractors and commonly externalize functions which
                                are not part of the company's core operating area.

                                But the core, that is under hierarchical control for a very simple reason:
                                operating it in an autocratic fashion makes it possible to derive extra
                                value from the market by optimizing across what would otherwise be a
                                number of competing, uncooperative entities. Sometimes the ownership
                                structure and the coercion it brings about is simply unavoidable if we
                                wish cooperation.

                                >When developers understand the answer to this question, they will be
                                >more likely to write P2P software instead of ever-more-powerful command
                                >and control systems.

                                I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind corporate structures should be
                                extended to software. After all, economics and money are about dealing
                                with scarcity, and that has very little to do with P2P.

                                I think just about the only relevant aspect, here, is that in P2P, the
                                incentive to cooperate comes naturally in the form of network effects. We
                                perhaps shouldn't try to supress it by competing in specific architectures
                                or protocols, but document protocols openly and let people embrace and
                                extend freely. It's quite likely that the best architecture would be left
                                floating, in the end.

                                Maybe we just shouldn't try to operate the P2P industry by the usual rules
                                of the market, but instead put the market where it belongs, where there is
                                scarcity. In the software industry, that is likely service, not technology
                                itself.

                                Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@..., tel:+358-50-5756111
                                student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
                                openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.