Re: [ox-en] Terminology: Peer X?
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:11:36 +0100
Hi Franz, Michel, Christian, all!
So it seems to be widely agreed that "peer" is a nice term and my few
concerns seem to be unnecessary. Good :-) .
6 days ago Franz Nahrada wrote:
So switching to a
more general concept will open our mind and I think Michel currently is
worldwide the person with the best overview and scope of the vague "cloud"
we are studying, at least from what he has published. Rallying around him
and his concept will do oekonux and the likeminded groups a lot of benefit
to reach out to the society at large.
I don't feel Michel's core thinking is so much different from for
instance mine. We disagree on the edges and some minor points but
essentially I think we agree on much more than we disagree.
4 days ago Christian Siefkes wrote:
But I would be careful about attaching a new prefix to old terms, since the
old terms might not just give up their old meaning. There is a reason we
talk about "presidents", not about "democratic kings".
Therefore, I don't talk about "peer governance" in my book, but simply about
"decision making and conflict resolution", since I think that these are the
two aspects of governance that remain relevant in a peer context, while
other aspects of governance-as-we-know-it-today no longer matter.
But that's also true for production, isn't it? Or wouldn't you think
that sweat shops - which are typical for some of today production
processes - would vanish?
I too think that the association with "peer-to-peer" is misleading, not
because of any possible "copyright violation" association (who
I care - and even a lot. Copyright is directed against the
Selbstenfaltung of the copyright holders and therefore not acceptable.
If I put something under a Free License then I want my execution of my
copyrights as much as respected as they.
We might just want to
emphasize that peer != peer-to-peer and that distribution alone is not enough.
Contact: projekt oekonux.de