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

RE: [decentralization] Groove centralizes

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
      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 2 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001

        > 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 3 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
          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 4 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
            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 5 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
              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 6 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                --- 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 7 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                  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 8 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
                    --- 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 9 of 15 , Nov 2, 2001
                      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 10 of 15 , Nov 2, 2001
                        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 11 of 15 , Nov 2, 2001
                          >>>>> "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 12 of 15 , Nov 6, 2001
                            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 13 of 15 , Nov 6, 2001
                              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.