Post by Pedroit's not just about better ideas, is a superior model against classic
private vs public property
Maybe we have a language barrier issue here, but "superior model" ===
"better ideas" in my usage of English.
Post by Pedroyou can get in touch reading its theories or putting it in practice
this talk (video) is a discussion towards the formalization of a model
that is currently working, and revolutioning our society.
You didn't address the issue: How far is this "revolution" going to
get when the 1% decide not to play along?
Post by PedroFor example, look how big it is that in this communication we are
heavily using tools operated by free software/open source (by diferent
third party entities: email, IETF, Internet, service providers). This
is fairly new approach in our recent history. And is the init for a
new commons revolution, step by step.
Fanboy talk. Let's not talk about the tools, let's talk about how the
1% is going to sit idly by when this movement gains any traction.
Post by Pedromicrosoft vs linux (microsoft is joining open source movement)
private encyclopedias vs wikipedia
private networks vs Internet ( still running ->
https://www.fightforthefuture.org/ )
I see no "revolution" in any of those examples: Both systems seem to
still be working in all of these cases. And in the case of Microsoft
they're still winning (and by a *lot*: Microsoft's market cap is *28*
times bigger than Red Hat, for example). And although there are many
better examples of disruptive technologies (I'd use cell phones and
Uber), you're missing the fundamental point which is that in those
cases the new technology is clearly superior to the old technology for
*everyone*, not just a few fanboys. "Commons" economic proposals can't
even theoretically make that claim (i.e., the 1% are always going to
be to-the-death opposed to it, and I predict you'd have a lot of
trouble even convincing the top 20% to play along).
Post by Pedrodecision making is not a problem (for me), this problem is from some
people to accept the consensus approach
Maybe I missed something, then: How do any of these "commons"
proposals address the issue of decisionmaking in a way that it becomes
binding on the 1%?
Post by PedroI agree a lot with this guys, and I try to run this way in the
In many ways, the IETF runs on the beliefs of its participants. One of
the "founding beliefs" is embodied in an early quote about the IETF
from David Clark: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe
in rough consensus and running code". Another early quote that has
become a commonly-held belief in the IETF comes from Jon Postel: "Be
conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept".
I've actually studied this organization and believe that you have been
misinformed about how it *actually* works: Special interests (vendors)
wield almost all of the power in that organization, and the chairman
of the committee (essentially the executive branch) holds the rest.
The average "citizen" in that government has no more power to
influence the outcomes of the decisionmaking there than any of us do
in RL government.
Post by Pedrofound here: https://www.ietf.org/tao.html
Well, in this words, or otehrs, is the suggested way to run a Commons
(common infrastructure, consensus about the rules taking in account
big majority of participants => consensus)
Again, that's not what "consensus" means. And IETF I would say
operates more on a "no reasonable objection" basis than a consensus
basis anyway. And that model just won't work if your system has to
make decisions in moral rather than just technical realms (i.e., just
try to make public policy on abortion using "humming" ;-)
Regards,
Scott