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

Re: [decentralization] Groove centralizes

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.