Re: [ox-en] peer production
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Hi Franz,
the concept of peer is not saying that everybody has the same capabilities, merely the potential to have particular capabilities that are useful to the project as a whole; generally speaking, such projects are anti-credentialist, do not ask formal prior proofs, but they may ask, as in some FS projects I believe, some kind of practical proof of your ability; but if you have done so, there is no prior hiring process, nor command of what your contributions will be.
Peer production is generally understood, by Yochai Benkler, Steve Webber, myself, as consisting of free (voluntary) engagement and universal availiblity. Of course, in the real world, this needs to be clarified, as hybrid formats may exist, i.e. both of these terms may be qualified in some way.
A key issue is how the gatekeepers are appointed. But in any case, since the project is based on voluntary contributions, and forking is possible, these gatekeepers are very much dependent on the community of peer producers,not on a financed command structure.
This is why peer production, despite all caveats like Rob Myers, cannot be subsumed to classic forms of capitalist production (even though of course, it is integrated in that self-same economy)
Michel
----- Original Message ----
From: Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada reflex.at>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:42:56 PM
Subject: [ox-en] peer production
Michel Bauwens writes:
of course, part of the issue may be semantics, neither
benkler nor me, and I don't think the stefan's of
oekonux, use peer production as simply referring to
production amongst equals, which could also apply to
cooperatives
that is NOT what is commonly understood under peer
production
thats quite important and I remember reading a quote by Rob Myers
from
a
blog you referred to in the Wikipedia governance thread:
"There are no peers in a Free Software project. If contributions are
deemed to be of acceptable quality, they are added to the project
by
its
appointed gatekeepers. If not, they are rejected and advice given. This
methodology is a structured and exclusive one, but it is
meritocratic.
Any
contribution of sufficient quality can be accepted, and if
someone
makes
enough such contributions they themselves may gain the trust
required
to
become a gatekeeper."
(http://www.anat.org.au/stillopen/blog/2007/08/19/open-source-ideologies/)
So why is it still justified to use the term, not only in the
context
of
the foundation, but also in the context of the oekonux conference?
I think its because there is a vital provision in the system
that
anybody
at any time can attempt to change the rules of the game, create a
fork
or
additional project. Thats the free cooperation aspect
turning
conditions
of production non-rival or as non-rival as possible, and
thats
something
which I hope will be looked at in more details in the
upcoming
conference.
Franz
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de