Peer governance (was: Re: [ox-en] Terminology: Peer X?)
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:59:55 +0100
Hi Christian and all!
2 months (62 days) ago Michael Bauwens wrote:
one of the most famous experts on governance, bob jessop, includes self-organization under governance ....
decision-making, consensus, all these form part of governance, even if the community 'governs itself' ...
Generally I agree with Michel's explanation that governance as a
notion describes a phenomenon. That's pretty much the correct term of
what I called OHA (German, translated: Organization, Domination,
Anarchy) some time ago (and for which there seems to be no good word
in German, especially because "Herrschaft" being the technical term
for it is not accepted in general).
However, I sense a lot of wishful thinking here.
2 months (63 days) ago Christian Siefkes wrote:
Stefan Merten wrote:
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?
Yup. But let's look at the definitions of these terms (from dictionary.com):
gov·ern·ance
1. government; exercise of authority; control.
2. a method or system of government or management.
pro·duc·tion
1. the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
...
pro·duce
1. to bring into existence; give rise to; cause.
2. to bring into existence by intellectual or creative ability.
3. to make or manufacture.
...
I don't think that "government", "exercise of authority", or "control" are
adequate terms for the decision making and conflict resolution processes we
can observe in free software/free culture products, and even "management"
sounds a bit far-fetched.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. What would you call it if a maintainer
in a Free Software project decides something where no decision comes
about from itself? That's clearly "exercise of authority". If the
maintainer would not have this authority s/he would not be able to be
maintainer at all. I mean it makes a difference if a maintainer says
something or - for instance - a troll. And that is good.
Also for "control". Please note: In English the term "control" means
steering just as much as checking (in German the steering component is
not contained in "Kontrolle"). And a maintainer certainly has a
steering function in a project. May be that's even the most important
one.
But this also means control in the checking sense. Linus - or the
kernel developers as a group - don't simply accept any patch which
comes in but control it for a number of criteria. If you look at
Wikipedia meanwhile you have a number or checking rules which are
applied. Whether they are good or bad is a different question strongly
related to the goal of the project.
And no, that's not a defect in peer projects. It's the way things have
developed and I think it developed very well. People like it and
exactly this is a point where I wholeheartedly *love* that peer
projects are not political projects. I saw countless political
projects which applied this type of wishful thinking you seem to
follow and which died exactly thereof.
Again the major difference here is that no alienated interests are
involved in peer governance. Maintainers of peer projects are foremost
interested in the project - or they are not accepted as maintainers
any longer. They need to follow the project goals and exactly this is
why people follow them. No other reason. This is also the reason why
corporations are constantly suspected and have a hard time as
maintainers.
As far as the term "government" is concerned in general the same
applies though to me it sounds more like an embodied institution. I'm
not so sure here because alienation might be already be embedded in
the notion.
On the other hand, the definitions of "produce" and "production" seem to fit
quite well.
That's why I would use these latter terms in a peer context, but not the
former one.
Sorry, I totally disagree. I understand that you are following those
dreams which are so common among a big leftist current - and in which
I also believed for such a long time. Peer production projects and
many other occasions in my less virtual live told me differently. I
agree it is hard to let down this perspective, but as you do you
suddenly see the world with different eyes. And a lot of things stop
looking simply mysterious...
Grüße
Stefan
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de