Kategorie: English
Projects in crisis — for example »Factor E Farm«
[Es gibt eine deutsche Version dieses Textes]
Shit happens. Again and again. We make faults, we create our own crisis in our projects. Frustrations and chances of learning are close together. The question is not how to avoid crisis, because we can’t look into the future. The more important question is, how to deal with crisis once they are there. Either commons-based peer projects distinguish from proprietary projects especially at this point or there is no other quality.
This is so crucial, because commons-based peer projects live from the contributions of the participating people to be integrated into the project — instead of out-competing an enormous part of the people as Martin has well shown (german). But the »end of selection and normalization« does not only occur, because we wish it so much, but only because peer projekts are structurally designed in a way, that integration and conflict resolution is possible.
The project »Factor E Farm« (FeF, also »Open Source Ecology«, OSE) has crashed now. Publicly, which is good.
Pat Mooney: Privatization of Chemical Elements
This is a reference to an article by Silke Helfrich maintaining the great CommonsBlog. Silke did a transcription of a spontaneous presentation by Pat Mooney given at the international commons meeting in Crottorf in June. Due to having a lot of english-only readers here, I want to point you to the orginal english transcription in Silke’s post starting after some introductory words in german with the headline »New technologies and new enclosures of the commons«.
A very interesting and somewhat disturbing presentation by Pat Mooney (Alternative Nobel Prize in 1985) about the dangers of nanotech and the like.
Reopening the Commons: Reversing the Enclosure
Nowadays, almost everybody is forced to sell their labor power in order to survive (or, at least, to avoid hardship and official harassment). This necessity seems so natural to us that we seldom think about why it exists and how it came about.
Yet, historically the situation that (almost) everybody has to sell their labor power is rather new—it only emerged with capitalism. Wage labor and capitalism depend on each other: Without capitalist companies, there would be nobody (by and large) to sell your labor power to, so wage labor could only be an occasional phenomenon (as it was before capitalism). And without wage workers, capital accumulation would be impossible, since their surplus labor is the source of profit (and of its derived forms, interest and rent).
That wage workers are forced to sell their labor power (due to a lack of alternatives) is just one side of the coin. The other side is that they are allowed to do so—in contrast to slaves, who cannot sell their labor power since they themselves have already been sold by others.
Happy Birthday, Oekonux
Today, the Oekonux project celebrates its 10-th birthday. Stefan Merten, the main founder and maintainer of the project, wrote on the mailing list:
Ten years ago, at the 21st of July 1999, I sent the first mail using the first Oekonux mailing list which had been just created:
I remember that at this time after ten years of heavy political activism I did not want to engage in something new. I remember that I was tired of this and also bored because after ten years you start to see the repetitions… Well, in the end I did not do what I wanted but instead followed my inner calling and founded Oekonux. That was really Selbstentfaltung 🙂 .
James Boyle about the fear of openness
Great talk of James Boyle about the cultural desaster automated copyright (since the 1970s) brings and the missing second layer (the links) of scientific publications, because they are not available on that web, which was created for scientific purposes.
[via CommonsBlog, where you can find a german transcription]
Dossier on the commons
The Heinrich Böll Foundation (related to the German Green Party) has compiled an English-language web dossier on the commons. The dossier contains a number of articles that were published in German language in the commons book compiled by Silke Helfrich (founder of the well-known German CommonsBlog). I’ve contributed an article on The Commons of the Future: Building Blocks for a Commons-based Society (PDF), discussing how future commons-based societies might organize themselves. The article, which has also been published by the Commoner magazine, highlights and clarifies many of the points I make in my book, focusing especially on the role of the commons in past, present, and future societies.
The dossier contains lots of other interesting articles as well, by Silke Helfrich, David Bollier, Yochai Benkler, Elinor Ostrom and Pat Mooney, among others. It also contains an interview with Richard Stallman.
Recommended reading!
ox4 Notes IV: Case Study of a Large Free Software Project
This post finally concludes my coverage of the ox4 conference (part 1, part 2, part 3). On the third day, George Dafermos presented a case study of the FreeBSD project. He talked mainly about how the project is structured and how division of labor emerges.
The core team comprises 9 people which are elected by the committers and who, in turn, decide who gets commit rights. There are about 250 committers (who have the right to commit code to the code base) and about 5500 contributors (who have to filter their contributions through one of the committers). This confirms the 1-9-90 rule of thumb: less than 1% of participants steer the project (the core team), less than 10% contribute regularly (the committers), the rest contributes occasionally (the contributors). Officially, the core team also has the task to resolve conflicts, but there are very few conflicts, and usually the involved people resolve them by themselves.
Reclaim the Commons — Squat your Airport!
ox4 Notes III: Money and Patterns
This post continued my coverage of the ox4 conference (part 1, part 2). The topic of Raoul Victor’s talk was Money and Peer Production. He pointed out that money as a dominant social relation emerged only with capitalism. In pre-capitalist societies, most social relations weren’t based on money and symmetric exchange. That’s an important reminder since people often believe that money and markets are more or less neutral tools which can be used for non-capitalist purposes, since they are far older than capitalism. They forget that money and markets have never been the primary means of organizing production in any non-capitalist society, they only played minor, supporting roles. Money cannot become the dominant social form outside of capitalism, and capitalism cannot exist without money.
Raoul also explained that money is just the incorporation of symmetric exchange; you cannot abolish money without abolishing exchange, and vice versa. Money emerges spontaneously when it is needed, e.g. cigarettes were used as a substitute money in times of war. When markets are forbidden but there is no other adequate way of organizing production and distribution, black markets appear—markets in their worst form. So money can only be abandoned by getting rid of its root cause: exchange.