kwerb on #supernova2008 (+sn): Supernova IRC logs are at http://www.zeitgeist.com:8080/log/supernova_bot/supernova2008 (Tue Jun 03 2008 14:02:25 GMT-0400 (EDT))

just in

-->|

PhilHawksworth (n=Phil@83-244-203-202.cust-83.exponential-e.net) has joined #supernova2008

welcome, phil

Thanks. Hello all.

-->|

pauld (n=chatzill@83-244-203-202.cust-83.exponential-e.net) has joined #supernova2008

hi, paul

(waves)

waves to all

that's us!

-->|

tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) has joined #supernova2008

-->|

hbgreenstein (n=chatzill@dsl254-069-250.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net) has joined #supernova2008

hola tantek, howard

greetings chris

hey there Chris Carfi, Tantek

Eileen Clegg rocks!

Eileen is an inspiration

indeed. here's her site: http://www.visualinsight.net/

Wow. Illustrated 'map' of the call. Very cool

-->|

P-Air (n=chatzill@c-69-181-19-173.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #supernova2008

-->|

dopp_ (n=chatzill@adsl-71-146-20-244.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net) has joined #supernova2008

-->|

mhg (n=chatzill@0x573c3a8a.bynqu1.broadband.tele.dk) has joined #supernova2008

'ello, sarahdopp

-->|

rayval (n=raysms@adsl-64-160-119-238.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net) has joined #supernova2008

=-=

dopp_ is now known as sarahdopp

hello!

|<--

mhg has left irc.freenode.net (Client Quit)

-->|

godsdog (n=chatzill@h-67-102-172-19.sttnwaho.covad.net) has joined #supernova2008

criterion for open: "accessibility"

I did not catch the fellow's name that is currently talking, who is it?

Elliot Maxwell is speaking

tks

transparent tyranny

open-ness is a continuum

open "good" or "bad"?..."it depends."

you mean like Google is doing ;)

yes there are degrees of opening the kimono

user-configurable openness

distribution is near free but access control is very expensive, hence the dilemma in all of this

security costs $$$

aka "information wants to be free"

...as does the training/education req'd to use said security mechanisms

open/confidential discrimination by the user--someone has to be dedicated to sustaining the hues of privacy that color our interpersonal information

<--|

spector has left #supernova2008 ("Leaving")

-->|

kc_ (n=chatzill@dslb-084-063-230-029.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #supernova2008

@godsdog: hence the cost

aw, Mitch, there you go, trying to nuance

Scott mcnealy told me privacy is over

P-Air -- hence my investment in such a system!

nice :)

:-)

Howard -- Scott's been too black-and-white for the past decade!

open is the new open

it's easy to see it in clay shirky's recent book ;)

is it becoming easier to control and influence society as it becomes open and highly connected? could Facebook, Twitter etc be used as a step to a tyranny?

elliott maxwell background: http://www.supernova2008.com/go/speaker-list2#maxwell

@pauld: brad templeton gives a great example of theoretical facebook tyranny

-->|

abroome (n=chatzill@host64-111.cablelabs.com) has joined #supernova2008

in England in the 1800s it was illegal to export textile equipment. Closed source machinery.

But a couple of crafty New Englanders were able to sneak into British factories and reverse engineer the concepts.

those wily new englanders. :-)

openness is a continuum

based on accessibility and responsiveness

lets see if that helps them win the NBA championship ;)

is an emerging theory of value of sharing

disrupting the control=incentive theory of innovation

-->|

johnborthwick (n=chatzill@static-71-249-179-251.nycmny.east.verizon.net) has joined #supernova2008

craig venter background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

should mitigate the patents silliness

openness in medical trials is a problem -- regulations prevent companies from spreading information about a trial openly, because it is perceived as "advertising," yet the patient can benefit by knowing about trials and their opportunity to monetize their condition..... http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=337

Craig Venter gave a mind blowing talk at TED http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/227

openness as a way to undo the patent system...nice

Jeremy Ruston (BT) is speaking now

Jeremy is referring to TiddlyWiki http://www.tiddlywiki.com

yet we cannot be open about patient's conditions out of respect for their privacy (Scott McNealy be damned) ;^> so, "open" is an instrumental problem, a phenomenon that changes due to the context of the anticipated exchange of information

isn't that always the case...think credit cards

didn't plan on sharing my transaction data w/marketers when registering...but there it went

-->|

Ace_NoOne (n=Ace@unaffiliated/acenoone) has joined #supernova2008

agreed mitch, context is key. if there was (huge "IF") a way to share information with "true" anonymity, there might be a happy medium

which is why VISA, the original form of the thing, is such an interesting example of collaborative governance -- I was on the Chaordic Commons board of trustees for several years, working with Dee Hock's ideas.

we don't depend on anonymity in real life, we depend on selective disclosure. so, we need a system that provides that reliably (no Twitter-like outtages) and responsibly (on clearly understandable terms)

"view source" on the web's original openness

back to the complicated access control issues that seem absent fm many of the conversations

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/0262062585/WebCampaigningDigitalSupplement.html

OpenID is not enough

yes, and programmers think in terms of established relationships, not evolving ones, when writing code to support sociability

Interview of Jeremy talking the history of TiddlyWiki here: http://www.vimeo.com/852169

programmers tend to think of abstractions of the real world, rather than deductions based on data sampled from the real world

i disagree with that, mitch. i think much of the code that's out there is how to get the "transaction" done = the one (and perhaps only) interaction != relationship

this is not restricted to "relationships" and established vs. evolving

so, Tantek, we're back to pre-Socratic existence....

Christopher -- the scope of the transaction is predefined and we drive users to it through a series of options.....

herding sheeple != "relationship" :-)

hehe

-->|

webb (n=chatzill@206.80.8.138) has joined #supernova2008

godsdog, it's not "back", programmers / computer science has its basis in mathematics

@tantek: social relationships do not have their basis in mathematics ;)

P-Air, correct

nor do most things that programmers attempt to represent symbolically about the real world

hence the disconnect between access control/identity issues and the needs of information to be free

mathematics has its basis in Pythagorean mysticism, too. there's a sense of completing something immanent in code that doesn't necessarily exist there. And, having cofounded BuzzLogic, I agree, social relationships can be described by mathematics, but are not founded in mathematics

-->|

Phil_Admin (n=chatzill@ppp-71-139-0-200.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) has joined #supernova2008

=-=

Phil_Admin is now known as PhilWolff

P Air - my information doesn't need to be free. I want to own my info.

if you want it, pay me.

hey PhilWolff :)

Welcome, Phil

hi, all

hi, phil. jeremy ruston is up on the ccall.

I hear that @hbgreenstein

but why pay you? in and of itself your info is worthless

info is temporal

value at one point != value at another point

and how are we to know your information is worthwhile without examining it?

howard... I agree!

hypothesis: info is temporal, data is not

value is contextual. the same information will be worth much in one situation and nothing in another. how to deal with both without disclosing all personal data in a way that drains it of value is the Big Problem

info is valuable, data is much less valuable

hey, it's my data. Of course it's of value.

Seriously, there should be a way to offer a value stream of my data

without me giving everything away, or opening my privacy

yes, Howard, there should.

VRM?

howard, that's EXACTLY what adriana lukas and alec moffet are doing with the "MINE"

Agent-based negotiation

VRM: an example of defining the transaction before the relationship

This was something I wrote about in 94, so

it is worth pursuing, still

when we share our location.. our data may be more valuable

not bragging, just remembering my days as a grad student

and yes Stuart

location is of value as well

to the starbucks I'm in front of, for example

<kwerb>

OK, I'm going to lead some discussion on the call. But please start sending questions for Chris to relay into the conversation.

VRM is about defining the relationship first i.e. on MY terms

our info is not formated in ways that is really tradeable today

@Casablanca: but you don't have recourse to defining a relationship without a transaction

this was what the Root Vault idea was, no?

kind of

Root Vault hoped to express preferences through attention data

@godsog

yes, but they couldn't figure out the value of that

Google has their famous 20% personal project time. Do you see open evolving to 20% available to other companies, sharing human capital more directly? Not just work product and IP?

@godsdog the transaction is the motivation for the relationship

@Casablanca: most of our relationships, especially in social contexts, exist before transactions. VRM has the cart pulling the horse

@godsdog: i don't think anyone involved in VRM would disagree with conversation/relationship being precursors to transactions. transaction is side-effect.

@godsdog we may be agreeing here; you mentioned that "VRM: an example of defining the transaction before the relationship", I'm saying that the relationship ought to come first on the web, just as it does in real life = VRM

More about Jeremy's corner of BT: http://www.osmosoft.com

@christopercarfi: I've been involved in that discussion throughout its history, but find people acknowledge this shortcoming, but don't want to deal with it. I keep hearing that VRM and other applications cannot exist without the parameters of a transaction. And I am fine with VRM for transactions, but I want to facilitate other types of interaction.

same @Casablanca as to chris -- we may be agreeing

:-)

Q. Do you see the tools of open work changing organization structure at BT?

@godsdog: then we're very certainly agreeing.

thx phil. got it in the queue.

I had a great conversation with Robert Shiller, the Princeton economist, about this problem -- here's the podcast, which I did for a company I advise: http://www.ratcliffeblog.com/Shiller-OpenYear.mp3

Q: what's the value proposition in "controlling" developers

crowdsurfing: you throw yourself out there, and if you're lucky the crowd catches you. and if they don't, it's humiliating.

A world where we are all Eddie Vedder is what we want?

you're on!

Tantek is speaking

tantek cites: emotions/motivations: Fear (of change) and Greed (overcoming fear of change).

what if the whole purpose of the company was not to make, but to share, a profit -- that's the chaordic model, when you don't weigh it down with ideological baggage

early developments on Social Graph came from the web, not from the companies

imho, these sharing media are helping companies develop trust in people, both as individuals but also in publics.

companies not used to really engaging w/people on earnest trust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen

fake trust is the more general principle, hence advertising ;)

|<--

P-Air has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.14/2008040413]")

this goes back to where you are on the spectrum between "people are inherently good, so get out of the way and good things will emerge" vs. "people are inherently bad, so we need constructs to constrain evil impulses and bad behavior"

i think sharing media move from either end of the spectrum toward a more realistic middle

Phil, is that the extent of the question? a simple binary choice? I don't think you think so, but is there some kind of "get in the way enough to help good things emerge" position?

heh

leadership is what we're talking about -- leaders get buffeted from both sides, but forge alliances that exceed the limited demands of either extreme wing

code can be open, but people don't exist at the application layer. we can put open code out, but people need control at the human relationship level in order to maximize the value of their information and their interpretation of information

-->|

ccarfi (n=chatzill@mda0f36d0.tmodns.net) has joined #supernova2008

that team wins to the detriment of the losers? what if the public is the loser, sacrificing personal data for a little value, e.g. Google

these team approaches foster and "us" that is posited against an "other" that restrain access to information "we" need. we need a middle ground

oy, it's up to business schools to save us?

|<--

christophercarfi has left irc.freenode.net (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))

|<--

godsdog has left irc.freenode.net (Remote closed the connection)

PhilWolff, you don't need to resort to good vs. evil aka moral/philopshical differences. you can model it based on economics instead.

<kwerb>

business schools FTW!

-->|

godsdog (n=chatzill@h-67-102-172-19.sttnwaho.covad.net) has joined #supernova2008

by the way - if anyone wants to contribute public (open) notes of the telecon, please feel free to do so here in the channel!

|<--

johnborthwick has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 3.0/2008051202]")

=-=

jtp2231 is now known as jtp2231|away

pauld, i have a couple of questions from you queued as well.

note wiki page for Open Flow: http://www.socialtext.net/openflow

i did have a dropout, so if there are others out there, pls resend.

Twitter adds a level of openness within BT, allowing people to contact each other outside of conventional mean

"things like twitter are interchange points with the outside world"

what's really cool about the @jobsworth twitter experience is the blend between internal and external groups. The edges of the company are blurred

"hiding things in plain view"

Sorry, JP = @jobsworth on twitter

wish I could stay, but work calls. all my best

|<--

hbgreenstein has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 3.0/2008051202]")

Iccarfi: I fired a few off, but I guess I'd ask if there's value proposition in "controlling" developers

does the new structure within BT recognize external value or is it rewarding people who are successful at integrating external ideas?

BTW, the "Red Queen" problem I mentioned is fairly well described on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen

pauld: got it.

management by twittering around

mitch: will ask that as a followup

finding my brain injecting the vi 'I' into irc as incongruous as other people injecting the twitter '@' :/

=-=

jtp2231|away is now known as jtp2231

@pauld: wq! :-)

:w :!make

* ccarfi

chuckles at vi geekitude

kwerb: "most smart people even working at your company are spending their time working on other things"

"at center of many networks" - david armano has a great "social system" graphic: http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/12/social-systems.html

we're also still bound to corporate governance structures. so google's 20% is still google-related, and there is a layer of accountability (trust but verify). the fabric of culture (legends, news, holy documents/plans) coordinates behavior and trust within a large org.

opening those tools of culture exposes you to more and different legends, news, plans.

-->|

KevinMarks (n=KevinMar@198.202.202.20) has joined #supernova2008

hello there

Hi Kevin

waves at Kevin

been listening to the call on the way to the airport; now here

|<--

jtp2231 has left irc.freenode.net ()

welcome KevinMarks!

* ccarfi

breaks into the BaconBaconBacon dance...thx, kevin...

(muuuushroom muuuushrooom...)

SNAAAAKE

was going through security when tantek mentioned google openscial

ironic :)

-->|

moses (n=chatzill@c-69-181-106-159.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #supernova2008

also, I didn't mention OpenSocial but rather Google's corporate culture

My view: while the tools can be used for tyrannical purposes, they lend themselves more to resistance against tyranny. Decentralised, anonymous and effective.

in which terms? closed or open?

fear

fear isn't an aspect I've noticed

and how much Bill Joy's quote about "most smart people work outside your company" has been implemented vs. ignored at a company known for the high walls of insider discussions vs. outside

well, there are paradoxes there in lots of companies

google is a huge supporter of open source development, and has a lot of peopel who work on open source projects

yes I pointed that out to begin with

but there is a legacy of inward-lookingness

recall the documentary "5 steps to Tyranny" :

1. Us and Them

2. Obedience to the leader

3. Do them harm

4. Join in doing them harm or stand by to let others do them harm

5. Exterminate them

http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=958764725

that kind of negative-sum thinking is not part of any conversations I've been in at google

the depressing thing for me is how every bit of news ends up with a 'war' metaphor when reported

the default news framing is A vs B

http://epeus.blogspot.com/2008/04/digital-publics-conversations-and.html

personal experience of say Twitter is it makes people feel more connected and empathetic, less divisive than older channels such as usenet, but suspects YMMV

i think that si true of twitter, because it enables chosen overlapping publics

pauld that scenario fails more and more at step 1 due to more openness - openness makes it harder and harder to enforce a clear "us and them"

now that you bring it up, i can see a competitive tactic of using open media/work/flow to derail a rival.

because everyone is much more connected

so is much more resistant to a tragedy fo the commons troll attack

while that may be the default -- and it is for every lazy writer in the world, because that framing provides built-in conflict -- why isn't the message not getting out that there is no war?

its not necessarily war, but competition

I don't know

I try explaining the game theoretic positive-sum framing of openness, and I get called a hippie

it may not even be competition

fundamentally it is a competition, of mindsets

I think in that context, I'd be inclined to take 'hippie' as a complement...

mindsets=us v. them

War is inherently a negative-sum game

which frames emerge victorious in memetic evolutionary struggle

even when journalists get beyond that the most they can manage is a zero-sum game

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-9883792-36.html

interesting to see twitter reactions the "blame Blaine" trolls amongst people I follow has been supportive to someone being isolated

vs. Louis Carroll's holding two contradictory ideas before breakfast

whereas open source and open standards are inherently positive sum games, that grow value in the world

really looking forward to this conference :)

sorry, Kevin, but that's an easy generalization about reporters. They are no dumber than the average person at Google, but they get the story of competition and war somewhere. Most journos would love to find a story that has a different angle

I know some good reporters who don't do that

but show me a story about an open launch we've done that wasn't framed as 'google attacks X'

then it would be constructive to be specific about the problem, rather than generalizing.... It's Google's fault, too. The company isn't the innocent victim of its PR efforts.

eh?

that wasn't my question....

it was about who gets rewarded, the outside value provider or the insider who integrates outside value

your right. wrong line. i've got the next one up. "does the new structure within BT recognize external value or is it rewarding people who are successful at integrating external ideas?"

apologies.

I'm not accusing anyone of being dumb, just having a default framing of negative sum games

your = you're

Kevin, I'm just saying that the war metaphor comes from the way Google operates and represents itself, too....

it's always Chess, not Go or nomic

how has google represented itself as at war with anyone?

<moses>

I'm working on an interesting project - using Liferay to build an enterprise social network, and we're currently working through issues dealing with federating enterprise social extranets. It runs into interesting issues around trust.

I'd say the way it operates is how we get that idea.

I haven't seen that

ok, that's not really the argument we are having here

what argument would you like to be having?

not really

|<--

abroome has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.14/2008040413]")

the value can reside inside teh company or outside, but how does it get rewarded -- does the reward end inside the company?

the Hayekian idea of spontaneous order that the open source community represent is not comprehended by journalist, on the whole

the value in the world grows

and it is seen by those inside and outside the company

thats what I mean by positive sum

Uh-huh. Perhaps if you framed it outside of the conservative political milieu, Google would be better understood

are you' saying the media is inherently marxist?

not in the least.... there is something other than Hayekian and Marxian economics. But, now you are creating dichotomies.

Bill Clinton was a big fan of Robert Wright's 'Nonzero' which is a great expression of this idea

no, you are

forget it, this is becoming childish

godsdog, KevinMarks, this is discussion is starting to sound just a bit off topic / tangential. Any way to tie this back into Open Flow?

agreed, Tantek

|<--

stuart__ has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 2.0.0.14/2008040413]")

I am saying that open source and open standards are inherently positive sum games

adn that fact is not well understood, as they are often portrayed in negative sum ways - War metaphors

even your fear and greed framing was somewhat gulity of that