Just put some first credentials on the AboutUs:BarCampBank.com page. Please don't hesitate to update in english. If you prefer to speak french, we could fill out a SubPage like AboutUs:BarCampBank.com/french -- ChristopheDucamp July 24, 2007 18:16 CET
Our friends from CommunityChest could be opened to build an area in SecondLife dedicated to opendiscussions for BarCampBank. My first suggestion could be to talk together on CraoBeach (free island) where we could use the forum ? Cheers -- ChristopheDucamp July 22, 2007 15:41 CET
Hi David. Welcome here, and there and there. First thing is to create a page BarCamp:BarCampBankPhiladelphia announcing your plan. We'll start structuring the page with you to give the usual get-going info. I'm more than happy to help from remote, you can click on my name to get my contact details and we can start chatting over Skype, by mail,... JesseRobbins will sure be a good reference to get all the tips and tricks for a successful event, but we'll leave me a week or two to rest from all the work he's done for the BarCamp:BarCampBankSeattle happening this week-end. When he's back he could even write an authoritative "How To" because I heard rumors of other barcampbanks on the west-coast. So do not hesitate to contact us. Maybe you could also create your personal page on this wiki (easy, just click on your name above and create the corresponding page). Talk to you soon. -- FredericBaud
I wrote a summary of the next steps for the P2PMoney project on the BarCampBank Google Group. In particular, we have to produce a one page presentation of the project that could largely be publicize to get traction on the project (we have to recruit developpers). We will also have to make targeted publicity (note: ok, wrong working) to the people of coworking (TaraHunt and ChrisMessina) and to the Drupal community. You can see a replay of the flashmeeting here. -- FredericBaud March 21, 2007 14:14 CET
This is really great, although, a very important side note:
You might not want to talk about publicity "targetting" Chrismessina and TaraHunt, because I'll bet that will really turn them off, based on conversations I've had with them. Same with very many people in the Drupal community. Many of those people would be turned off by the notion that they are being "targetted" with "publicity". I'd like to suggest that it is better to say that we would like to talk to them about these ideas and see if they resonate with them.
I know that you don't mean what you are talking about in a negative way, but I also know that it will really turn people off if they think we are talking about them publicly or privately as a market to be targetted. We won't get very far with them.
But, never the less, I totally agree that we should reach out to all of the people we've discussed.
A presentation is good. Also, we should think about ways that we can present the idea to:
Producing a one page presentation is a good start. We can then modify or add to this basic one sheeet description if needed when presenting to different groups.
At the same time, I suggest that we also create a Knowledge Base about this, by aggregating existing knowledge out there. Similar to the research at BankAndFinanceWatch, but using multiple sources, and placing it at least for now on one page on the wiki. By multiple sources, I mean either manually placing on this page, or marking in our group in ma.gnolia, and creating shared tags so that it's easy to find what everyone marks later. Also, we can use the notes field in ma.gnolia to clarify exactly what is important about whatever the link leads to, in the context of P2P money. In fact, we could use P2P money as our main tag for everything that relates to this, and then create other tags for other categroies, like outreach, Compensation engine, etc. (we can discuss this and coem to an agreement before doing it)
Then, we can go through those tagged items, and summarize in the wiki what we actually want to include in the project. We can leave things that end up becoming irrelevant out of the wiki pages. This will help us produce good white-paper-quality pages in the wiki. -- SamRose
No problem, we could call it conversational exposure. We can already try to shorten what's on the current P2PMoney main page to make it easier to read.
OK, I quickly copied the current content on the main page to http://groups.google.com/group/barcampbank/web/p2pmoney-one-pager. We can use this page on Google to start refining our one-pager.
Ready to help you if you met any difficulties. --ChristopheDucamp March 11, 2007 11:30 CET
This note to point to the meeting minutes of the first workshop of P2PVenture. My view is that this meeting was the first of its kind for BarCampBank of what could become open incubation meetings. I think this worked quite well and gives a lot of hope on what BarCampBank could accomplish as an open incubation environment. I'd be happy to hear feedback from other participants and in particular from Jean-Marc and Thomas to know if they think this was useful for their project. I'd also be happy to talk with anyone who would like to do similar incubation meetings for their own project with BarCampBank. -- FredericBaud
Discussion moved to P2PMoney.
Discussion was moved to BarCampBankLicense.
Hi Sam, I'm just back from winter vacations and happy to see your post. My view is that the "new" economy can very well be understood with the concepts of the old economics theory. Probably not with the Price Theory (exchanges happening within single product markets through one single-price), but with the more general theory of surplus (see "The General Theory of Surplus" from Maurice Allais one of the very few French Nobel laureate in Economics). Using the "theory of surplus" angle, I'd say that we should probably speak of exchange instead of sharing. If I contribute with an idea or some code contribution, I exchange something I own (with little cost for an idea) for the possibility of getting something in return. Even if I don't get anything back, I'm still better of providing the idea or the code and still expecting something in return, than keeping it to my own. In this case, the theory of surplus explains that the exchange can indeed happen even if no price is set. The theory does not deal if the surplus created (value received by people using my idea or code and the value I receive in exchange) is shared fairly (this is the domain of the Theory of Justice), but simply states that an exchange can happen when positive surplus is created, and that most of the time, mechanims even tend to maximise the creation of surplus. -- FredericBaud
Frederic, thanks for your response. You make some great points. My primary point is that you cannot understand what is emerging now with the lens of economics alone. You cannot apply the economic assumptions of the past to what is emerging now.
The lens of economics does not take into account the actual non-linear nature of humans. Instead, it assumes a narrow, "rational" nature, that actually comes from but one of the many worldviews and fundamental assumptions that people solve problems with.
Economic theories, and economic theoretical logic may be applied to what is happening physically happening with money or tangible goods, but they fail to explain why it is happening (why people are making the exchanges).
Economic theory is not explaining why people are choosing in very recent history to shift from exchanges based on claiming full ownership of an patentable idea or code, for instance, to attatching a clause to their patentable idea or code (or writing or music recording) that it can be re-used, but must be re-released in perpetuity.
WHY are people doing this? How does economics explain that? What does economic theory say is in it for the people that are actually releasing intellectual property in this way, that was previously captilized upon by drawingg an enclosure around it?
The closest I've seen people come to applying economics to this, is first Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation, the idea that human exchanges are non-zero sum "games". And then, Elinor Ostrum's theories in Governing The Commons, that the reason why people are contributing code and ideas and "property" to commons for free, might be because they are frankly tired of having everything framed in the restrictive boundaries of traditional economics theory at all. So, they decide to systemize the sacrificing part of "themselves" now, so that all can gain now. Then, we see the emergence of OpenSource software infrastructures, GPL licenses, creative commons licenses, etc.
Also, another point that I made was that economics fails to take into account how humans use, interact, develop and evolve with the technologies they create. Most of the economic theory that I know of often seems to look at this area (known as media ecology) with assumptions of linearity. That people will keep on using technology the same way, that people will predictably consume and use the media the same way. And, that technology progresses in a linear way. We've built out societies and very importantly, our markets, around these economic assumptions about human nature and technology from the past. Now, people are struggling to make sense of what is emerging, and they are using the models and maps and assumptions, lenses and understandings of the past.
The assumptions of linearity are built into the infrastructure of our systems. People who benefit from these assumptions systematically being a part of our societal structure fight hard to make the system reward those who operate with these assumptions. It is going to become harder and harder to fool people into thinking they are getting a reward, however, as it becomes easier and easier for them to create their own system of rewards. -- SamRose
Hi Sam, I'm not sure what you mean exactly by linearity. But I have a mixed position on what you're saying. I have been studying economics for a long time and have been repeatedly confronted to its shortcomings. But I have also been repeatedly amazed by its explanatory power for most parts. So, I agree that there is a lot that is out of the standard corpus, but also, there is a lot that can finally be explained just by extending the standard concepts and using the same methods. When open-source appeared, I was as intrigued and stunned like most economists who failed to explain what was happening. But a lot has been happening since and I think there is now a fairly good understanding of the phenomenon with renewed economics concepts.
I agree that there is still a lot to be done to incorporate notions like altruism, empathy,.. that certainly guide human decisions and that are currently poorly integrated within the description that provides economics. People like Daniel Kahneman or Robert Axelrod are certainly helping doing that and my feeling is that they are probably more like extending the reach of economics than discarding what has been accumulated so far. -- FredericBaud
Wouldn't really be the actions of a sane person, who lived in a world where fundamental assumptions are virtually dominated by western economic theory, would it?
The paradigm of economics needs to be extended, with Futures studies/foresight concepts, media and technology literacy, and BioPsychoSocial understanding of human nature. The evolution of human nature does not fit itself into one fixed paradigm, economics or otherwise.
Never has, never will.
But "Extend Economics" is sadly often not what happens when people apply economics. And that is where my problem is.
Discard trying to understand everything through just the narrow lens of economics alone.
It certainly may seem like you can reframe what is happening in Commons-based economies in the terms of traditional economics. But, if you do that, you are looking at the world through a tube.
This is exactly what I was talking about, with saying "Trying to fit the emerging future into the structure of the past".
Of course, wanting to explain new, emerging ways of solving problems through existing paradigms is an old human past time. But just because we've always done it that way, doesn't mean we are forever bound to.
Indeed, when new ways of solving problems of existence emerge, the people using them often will try themselves to force-fit them into the old ways for a time, because that is the dominant way of doing things in their world. -- SamRose
Just a small proposal added on BarCamp:BarCampBankFlashMeeting6. Naturally ready to help any barcampbankers to have one or several OpenID. Let me know. Currently thinking Jyte and Brian could help us to seed a social white listing group ? -- ChristopheDucamp February 10, 2007 13:32 CET
Are Jyte's surveys necessarily two-sided questions? I think we would need a voting mechanism for subjects similar to what we have with Doodle for dates. If anyone knows an easy way to let people add proposals, vote and tally the different votes, that would be cool. -- FredericBaud
I just sent an email to invite James Gardner to join us on the BarCampBank wiki site. I was pointed to James' blog by the addition ColinHenderson made on our BankAndFinanceWatch. Jame's blog is really great!!!
... add your name