<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Le 12/11/2011 19:10, Tom Chance a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACD80NQBMUrqNFQYdJ1RdEaA3JjRwLu+vpLL21hWbPqJeS-15w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 12 November 2011 15:35, Serge
Wroclawski <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:serge@wroclawski.org">serge@wroclawski.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div id=":tz"></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
[...]<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACD80NQBMUrqNFQYdJ1RdEaA3JjRwLu+vpLL21hWbPqJeS-15w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div id=":tz">we should<br>
explore exactly what we want OSMF doing.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div>I completely agree with Serge's response.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By the way, I think there's a major flaw in applying Yochai
Benkler's theory of "commons-based peer production" to
OpenStreetMap.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In a free software project there's a clear difference between
production and use. Participation in its development is
necessarily technical and difficult, and most communities who
want to engage more people in production tend to develop
communities for art work, documentation, translation, marketing,
etc. In production, everyone really is a "peer" with roughly
similar skills and aims. Communities that then want to ensure
their product can be used by a wider range of people take a
structured approach toward usability.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>OpenStreetMap aims to engage a much wider range of people in
production, people who aren't all peers in the same sense. So we
need to take a more structured approach toward aspect of
production, both in collaborating on our core data and on
producing useful spin-offs like maps and data analysis.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Often when I read Frederik's emails I get the feeling that he
can't recognise any form of organisation outside of Ronald
Coase's "market prices" or "managerial command" models besides
an anarchic interpretation of Benkley's "commons-based peer
production". People don't study sociology and political science
for nothing.<br>
<br clear="all">
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Tom</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://tom.acrewoods.net">http://tom.acrewoods.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/tom_chance">http://twitter.com/tom_chance</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thank you Tom for answering on substance.<br>
<br>
I disagree with your view that "there's a major flaw in applying
Yochai Benkler's theory of "commons-based peer production" to
OpenStreetMap" and your characterization above.<br>
<br>
I refer to his article "Coase's Penguin" [1]. By the way, I
encourage everyone interested to read it if they have not already
(even though it may be a bit long by current Internet standards),
and I thank again Schuyler for making me aware of it in a talk at
Where 2.0 2010 [2]. I know that, even though it was written in 2002,
when OSM did not yet exist and Wikipedia was just getting started,
it allowed me to understand better the underlying mechanisms that
make OSM possible and fitted very well with what I perceived of its
inner workings. (The article also include a section "Threats to
motivation" that may be of interest in the context of the numbers
reported by Kai. The topic of motivation was also mentioned in the
first replies to Frederik's port, it seems that no answer in this
thread has taken it in consideration yet. Also my understanding was
that one of Frederik main worries was with possible mis-allocation
of resources. Efficient allocation of "human resources" is one of
the key advantages of common-based peer production according to this
article).<br>
<br>
The example cases covered by Benkler are not restricted to free
software, and include endeavours with quite a wide range of needs,
including academic research for example. He also recognizes the
possible need for structures to support common-based peers
production, including the possibility of monetary rewards for some
functions (see p. 64 of the pdf, for example).<br>
<br>
It may be that there are better organisation theories that could be
more useful for OSM. Please feel free to enlighten us about them.<br>
<br>
But let us consider for now the framework that he proposes : that
there are three modes of production, either contract-based in firms
("managerial command"), property-based in markets ("market prices"),
or commons-based peer production.<br>
<br>
For me, it is very clear that the third mode, "commons-based peer
production", is the best one to describe the OpenStreetMap Project.<br>
<br>
Mikel's blog post made me realize that the OpenStreetMap Foundation,
with its Board and the hierarchy of working groups, - or at least a
part of it -, might be best described as a "managerial command
system". <br>
<br>
There are functions, like finances or central public relations, for
which this might be the best system. (Though it is not even
certain).<br>
<br>
From a "logic of organisations" point of view, I think that the
interface between the two modes of organisation, commons-based peer
production and managerial command system, must be considered very
carefully, and that risks for clashes are located there.<br>
<br>
For example, the OSM foundation might impose terms that contributors
must accept if they want to remain active in the OSM project. Or
some "manager" might inadvertently give an order to a participant
who could considerate it aberrant given that he thought that he had
signed up for a "commons-based peer production" organisation. (These
examples are of course purely imaginary).<br>
<br>
The question of the best organisation for the particular
commons-based peer production project that is OSM is certainly not
easy.<br>
<br>
In particular, should its governance be mainly a "managerial command
system" or "commons-based peer produced"?<br>
<br>
Indeed, if commons-based peer production was so successful to
produce OSM database, could it not also produce OSM governance?<br>
<br>
And how? Since this mode of production is so recent, there might not
be an easy answer, that could be taken off the shelf. But who better
than the OSM community could collectively discover or construct it?<br>
<br>
In this sense, this "Avoid mandate Creep" thread highlights the risk
associated with a commonly prejudiced view that a "managerial
command system" is the only possible governance organisation in
general, and hence for OSM. There is some internal logic that most
people who end up on the board would share this view. (Otherwise,
why run?) So it must be especially difficult for them, given their
(remarkable and never acknowledged) strong commitment, to take a
step back and consider this possibility. But I am sure they would do
it if they think it is better for the project.<br>
<br>
Again, this is the question I would like to raise here, because I
think it is very important: should OSM governance be mainly a
"managerial command system" or "commons-based peer produced"?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So what do I suggest concretely? (have I been asked in a direct
mail). I don't know. I do not claim to have an answer. Here are just
some example suggestions that come to mind.<br>
<br>
Mikel describes a simple technique that the OSM-F board uses to come
to a consensus on a topic, by casting 5 votes on brainstormed
choices. Could it not be generalised online to all OSM-F members,
for OSM-F issues? Or even to all OSM community members, for OSM
project issues?<br>
<br>
For example a wiki page created as an exercise by the Strategic
working group compiles suggestion/comments made by the OSM community
as to the future direction of the project. The OSM-F board has just
defined goals for the OSM-F for 2012. Experiments in "commons-base
peer produced" governance could include asking all the OSM-F members
what they think of the OSM-F goals, or OSM community members what
they think of the goals of their "supporting" OSM-Foundation. Or the
OSM community members which of the suggestions of the global list
seem more valuable.<br>
<br>
If it was so great to share ideas and discussions between the board
members, wouldn't it be great to do so between the OSM-F members, or
between the OSM community members? (Which may include sociologists
or political scientists).<br>
<br>
Of course, there is nothing really new here. This is already what is
happening more or less informally all the time on the lists and
other communication means. What could be maybe new (at least to
some, judging by some of the mails in this thread) is the
recognition that this is a legitimate, well adapted governance mode.
That respecting it and avoiding to interfere with it (eg by
reshaping the project, or the community, from the "top") is not
"doing nothing". And that, on the contrary, supporting and
developing it might be worthwhile. <br>
<br>
Other example suggestions for topics that might be worth of a
consultation or collective decision might include:<br>
- what are appropriate modes of organisation, or domains of
competence for OSM project support structures?<br>
- what are the biggest problems facing the OSM project?<br>
<br>
(When asked what was the biggest problem facing Google, Larry Page
answered "Google".<br>
It should be not be a priori excluded that if asked what is the
biggest problem facing the OSM community, the community itself might
answer "OSM-F" ;) <br>
(or at least some tendencies within it).<br>
<br>
Thank you for reading this far.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Jean-Guilhem<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] Summary: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html">http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html</a><br>
Full text: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf">http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf</a><br>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://whereconf.com/where2010/public/schedule/detail/13201">http://whereconf.com/where2010/public/schedule/detail/13201</a><br>
script translated in French:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://osm-haiti.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/04/02/openstreetmap-a-contribue-a-sauver-des-vies/">http://osm-haiti.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/04/02/openstreetmap-a-contribue-a-sauver-des-vies/</a><br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club"
(Thanks to Stefano Zacchiroli, Debian Project Leader)</pre>
</body>
</html>