Value networks need robust communication systems that are highly scalable, and at the same time reduce noise. It is important to be able to navigage the entire network, but at the same time to filter the right information.
One of the big problems with p2p networks is that communication comes from all the nodes and must be made available to all nodes. In other words, there are no pre-established lines of communication following chains of command (like in the army), relations of power or functional structures (like in corporations). This causes information overload. Somehow information must get structured and agents need tools to access it whenever they need it, while maintaining noise (information that is not relevant at a particular time in a particular context) at low levels.
Requirements for the ultimate communication tool
- Highly scalable
- Fractal (can filter domains of activity, can zoom into different sub-networks of a super-value network)
- Synchroneous and asynchroneous
On managing discussions
Ishan started a metamaps map of tools.
See also Netention
"Conversation for Action" see Bob
Bob also suggests Harlan T Wood
Tools considered for managing conversations/discussions
- Assemble - Frank Escoubes
- federated wiki
Types of discussions
From Joanne G. Kurfiss Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice and Possibilities, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no.2, Washington, D.C. 1988, p. 67 extracted from
Different discussions have their own dynamics and serve different purposes. The following is relevant in a learning environment.
- Quiz show: participants answer information questions posed by a facilitator. Such discussions reinforce dualism and received knowledge.
- Rambling bull sessions: These are opinion-sharing conversations, where participants share their own views without necessarily engaging with the views of others.
- Wrangling bull sessions: If the discussion takes a controversial turn, the discussion can become an argument in which each person takes a position and defends it. Bull sessions reinforce multiplicity/subjective knowledge and no true exchange or thoughtful evaluation of ideas take place.
- True discussions: can have different types: informational, problematical, dialectical, and reflexive.
In informational discussions, the facilitator/mentor encourages participants to speak, defers controversy, and lets participants know their ideas will not be evaluated.
In problematical discussions a problem-posing query has the participants consider the information and/or values needed to address the issue intelligently.
In dialectical discussions, the request is made for participants to state opponents' views accurately and sympathetically (i.e., take a "devil"'s advocate's view). This encourages participants to "synthesize diverse opinions into a new formulation of the issue or to agree to disagree but with a better understanding of the nature of their differences."
In reflexive discussions, participants discuss their own discussion in order to learn from the process.
Discussions can also be
- spontaneous or
Three discussion configurations
- Either an existing structure (project/hub/network/pull platform in the enabling sense) 'attracts' participation and resources to it because it has the right visibility and momentum, and it has a 'proposed' structure people can decide to join or not. There conversation to action is tactical and usually quite focused.
- Or something is in its generative creative stage, or at its infancy stage, and the start discussions begins totally open. And there you need some ideation, and sniffing each other around to know a bit more what possibilities exit and what point of views are, and this is done through iterative processes, from which a structure should at some point emerge and consolidate, and we are up to the previous case.
- Or it's an ongoing open ended conversation and you need to capture the essence of what passes through and put it to work, and this is not necessarily done in real time as the flow passes, because you may need to identify patterns and understand things better before things can fork off or be 'extracted'. There you have opportunities for multiple structures to be created. It could almost be a commons in itself...
Discussions on OVN
Proposed by Fernando Fachin
Three main areas of concern
a) design, definitions, decision-making (where issues concerning value, the value equation, evaluation, and more specific aspects like solidarity mechanisms - in short, the OVN in itself)
b) internal social dynamic implications of introducing OVN (barriers to entry of new members, engagement, poison, ethics, behavior regulation, frustration, friction)
c) the OVN within its broader context (the "old" market economy, licensing, comparison to other systems and platforms)
Discussions on Infrastructure development, based on development cycles
Proposed by Yasir, in relation with his doc on Strategy
A general list of category or framework that I had thought about before:
Communication and coordination mechanism
- Connecting (ability to connect with people)
- Information searching / sharing (ability to find and share information)
- communication/coordination (ability to communicate and coordinate with people)
Value creation, accounting and evaluation mechanism
- Co-creation (ability to create stuff -- tools, space, resources, etc)
- Accounting (ability to account for individual contribution)
- Evaluation (ability to evaluate work and provide feedback) - includes reputation
- Internal governance (Ability to change the processes, resolve conflicts and take decisions) - including roles and responsibilities; and process and network health-check mechanisms
Exchange and governance mechanisms
- Exchange (Ability to exchange the value created)
- External Governance - market rules and regulation, quality control, liability and legal framework, market health-check mechanisms, etc
- Interoperability - ability to do all of the above with a person outside of your present entity (exchange with another member of country, trade, etc)
- I think of above as non-linear and iterative steps in the value flow process -- imagine a clock, the second hand moves the minutes hand, minutes hands move hour hands, etc. For example:
- 1) People would need to connect, share information, communicate and coordinate prior to start producing use-value (connection and communication in itself is valuable but it is not consumable use-value)
- 2) As the use-value is produced, there is a need for mechanism for accounting, evaluation and internal governance (along with communication, connection, etc) until the value matures into exchange value
- 3) As the use-value is matured, there is a need for mechanisms for value exchange, liability and inter-operability.
Pre-requisites for discussion
[Yasir] Pre-requisites to having a deeper, variant and rich conversation, at a larger scale.
- availability of tools for conversation
- availability of a framework for discussions
Need for a common framework for discussion. This framework needs to be constructed. Ishan proposes a process of mapping or an attempt to increase coordination (of thought) between those who engage in the conversation.
Perhaps the framework approach is top-down but if the discussions around the framework are inclusive, open and transparent then I don't believe that it would be top-down but I am open to additional criticism.
Discussions require a code of conduct which depends on their type and purpose.
Functions that a discussion needs (either roles in platform-based system or in "pure" p2p):
This section presents different examples of communications systems, their features as well as their problems.