The day-page-set for the talk in the social-synergy-wiki
Make peace, not war!
Make wiki, not money!
Sorry, the changes didn’t work for a while, fixed it. The face. Face of a person, a community, a company, a nation … Depending on the person (community, bla …) you can see a lot about the person or you hear a lot about other persons or something in between. It speaks better than the mouth does maybe? I like face. It’s one of the first of all words. Blog is one of the last ones. Is renaming blog to face here ok?
Certainly “value networks” are an emerging fashion and paradigm shift in visualising and analysing how organisations really work.
However, the diagram depicted does not conform to the value network standard that is now shaping up in the Information Object Model.
Whilst the ovals indicate groups of people, the lines should show deliverables, either tangible or intangible in order to derive the most insights from a value network approach at this time in its development.
This modified way of representing a value network will then tie in to the definition quoted in Wikipedia.
Hi Sam. Not a lot of time, currently overbooked with my professional job and a first attempt to have a MicroFormats localization in french.
I just heard this morning some concerns about p2pventure discussion with Fred.
Still interested as an OccasionalContributor? to help BarCampBank?. I just asked Frédéric and other french BarCampBankers? to leave FractalWiki? and have a decision about migration. Could be discussed tomorrow during BarCampBank?3. My opinion as an occasional contributor is that BarCampBank? should have its technical autonomy in the WikiNet.
Could you just give us here more information about your divergence ?
Kind regards and still very interested to follow-up future translations to develop our WikiNet
Opened to have a Skype tonite if you want ?
Cheers Sam. – ChristopheDucamp
PS : I’d enjoy to know more what’s going on RecentChangesCamp
Chirstophe, I am going to copy this to http://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wikidev.cgi?EN/P2PVenture/Forum
I think that it is good that FredericBaud? and others interested in the ideas materializing at http://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wikidev.cgi?EN/P2PVenture have some kind of central space to develop and promote ideas. And, I think it’s good to allow them to explore and develop P2PVenture following a more controlled and centralized process.
The reason why I think it is good for them to do this, goes back to what I talk about in LiteracyOfHumanNature. The idea that different people solve the same problems in different ways.
I think that some people would prefer to create and elect a decision making body, and pursue projects in a more controlled way, under the BarCampBank? banner. This is the way that they work best in solving problems, and I think they should be allowed to do this.
Yet, I think others do not work best this way in solving certain types of problems, so you had people advocating for making BarCampBank? technically automous, and also creating decision making systems that are more decentralized.
I keep trying to advocate that we should give space to allow for people to solve problems in ways that align with their view of the world, and their local conditions of existence. So, I am advocating that, under the umbrella of BarCampBank?, that we figure out a way to allow for the more centralized processes that you see at http://www.wikiservice.at/fractal/wikidev.cgi?EN/BarCampBank and the people that prefer them to be able to pursue them, and for the more decentralized processes that we’ev tried across WikiNet(s), and for the people who prefer those to be free to pursue them. And then, we also think about a way to allow the multiple ways of solving problems to interface, multiply value, and benefit one another.
You cannot force people to change into something they are not ready to change into. So, it would be an impasse to say that we should either develop BarCampBank? using these processes, or those processes. We should look instead at figuring out ways to connect different ways of solvign problems that at first seem un-connectable. And, we should afford people the space to experiment with different ways of solving problems.
Again, from LiteracyOfHumanNature thinking, you see that people with different world views will work best by employing different ways of organizing people:
It’s nearly impossible to force-fit people who prefer one way of organizing into other ways.
This is where traditional business often fails, it forces people into different ways of organizing and solving problems that don’t work for them. It doesn’t allow affordances for different ways of solving problems in either it’s development or it’s interaction with potential customers/users. Traditional business often doesn’t have the flexibility to deal with local conditions, or with the fact that different people solve the same problems in different ways, and that you can’t successfully force them to solve problems your way.
I think we should not make this mistake with BarCampBank?. I think we should look at local conditions. For instance, as we see in the notes here:
…that because of regulations in France, an investment-to-lending lending system might be better for French local conditions. While, in the US, regulations allow for equity investment in small businesses in different ways, and lending is less desireable, because so many people in the US are already up to their ears in debt, and receive multiple offers in the mail every day for even more high interest debt!
I think we should also allow for people to solve problems and organize people in ways that work best for them, which means that I think Fredericbaud and others interested should continue the development of the P2PVenture project, and should create a centralized site that is in line with their goals, including using tools that they beleive will best help them reach their goals and target user-base/audience. So, if that means they want to use proprietary tools, or non-wiki sites, then so be it, IMO.
Meanwhile, I think that others (like us) should be allowed to pursue decentralized development via WikiNet or whatever other reasonable means we see fit, to attract and the community that we are interested in attracting.
I also think that we should then think about how to network these efforts together in ways that allow them to share value, but don’t force-fit ways of organizing or solving problems onto each other.
A firefox add-on to handle MicroFormats
MattisManzel: Fixed the editable titles all over and did some more stuff
we should fix the header, it’s not that nice blown up like that. Got a nice foto url or so? 1280 x 195, the very right of it is only visble on big screen resolutions (without oversizing and using the vertical scrollbar).
CSS can now be dynamically resized.
MattisManzel: I added sections “Who is currently watching the blog / changes of this wiki?” on the blog and on the changes (more on Mattis-Manzel-wiki: blog and Mattis-Manzel-wiki: changes). This is what could be automated with the wiki-net server later. You’d automatically see wikis appear and disappear in these sections. When they add your wiki their wiki-net-feed changes. This feed is regularly fed to the wiki-net server. The machine memorizes that the social-synergy wiki was added or removed somewhere and the next time this wiki connects to the wiki-net server it gets fed the new informaton and it displays it in the respective section of blog or changes.
You’d pretty fast drop into the first interesting “complete strangers”. I wonder what that would lead to? Some kind of a collaborative explosion? Even the singularity? Anyhow. Who knows?