Hi Robert,<br><br>We may not share the same framework of reference, so I'll be just rambling on.<br><br>(first, in case I haven't mentioned it before, for a rapid overview of the p2p meme, there is now a 4-minute videa at
<br><a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/what-is-peer-to-peer-4-min-version-of-michel-bauwens-video-interview-featuring-cc-licensed-music/2007/05/04">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/what-is-peer-to-peer-4-min-version-of-michel-bauwens-video-interview-featuring-cc-licensed-music/2007/05/04
</a>)<br><br><br>I will start with some arguments as why agency is indeed so efficient in the p2p model, and conclude with a short paragraph as to why the principal-agent logic does in fact not apply in distributed models.
<br><br>I am of the opinion that, in certain circumstances, which have to to with either an abundance of resources (true in the immaterial sphere), or a distribution of resources (i.e. slicing it up in so many small pieces that the supply becomes a matter of sovereign individual choices which can create a semblance of abundance,
i.e. an infinity of choices even in a finite environment) - thus when these conditions are met, that the economic and political productivity is essentially higher, and almost inevitable creates asymmetric competition that will make the distributed network stronger than its centralized or decentralized rivals.
<br><br>In terms of cooperation, p2p's synergestic cooperation model (1+1>2) seems stronger than either neutral (the tit for tat exchange of capitalism) or adversarial (feudal and tributary models)<br><br>In terms of game theory the four wins of p2p cooperation (win for the individuals involved, for the community, and for the world at large) will trump the individual-wins-only of capitalism, and the win-lose model of feudalism.
<br><br>In terms of motivation, the peer production model simply eliminates the less efficient motivations, i.e. the extrinsic negative of adversarial models based on fear, and the intrinsic positive remunerations of the for-profit model. Unpaid passionale production only caters for the intrinsic positive motivation, which has been shown to be the most productive.
<br><br>(But it comes at a price. While it is collectively sustainable (as long as the passion capital of those who leave the project can be replaced by newcomers), it is not individually sustainable. This key problem requires social institutional solutons).
<br><br>I'm not sure what you mean by representation, but peer production is essentially non-representational, and can only be such because we can now globally coordinate micro-teams that stay under the Dunbar number limitation of hierarchical necessity.
<br><br>Peer production is economically more productive for the above reasons, and is politically more productive because of this intrinsically higher participation, while it is more productive in terms of distribution of the wealth creation, through its commons-oriented licenses.
<br><br>I used to think that the model of peer production would essentially emerge in the immaterial sphere, and in those cases where the design phase could be split from the capital-intensive physical production sphere. Von Hippel's work is very convincing in showing how widespread the model of built-only capitalism already is.
<br><br>However, as I become more familiar with the advances in Rapid Manucturing (see <a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Rapid_Manufacturing">http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Rapid_Manufacturing</a>) and Desktop Manufacturing (see
<br><a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Desktop_Manufacturing">http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Desktop_Manufacturing</a>), I'm becoming increasingly convinced of the strong trend towards the distribution of physical capital.
<br><br>If we couple this with the trend towards the direct social production of money (i.e. the distribution of financial capital, see <a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Exchange_Infrastructure_Projects">http://www.p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Exchange_Infrastructure_Projects
</a>) and the distribution of energy (<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Energy_Grid">http://www.p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Energy_Grid</a>); and how the two latter trends are interrelated (see <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/combining-distributed-energy-with-distributed-money/2007/05/06">
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/combining-distributed-energy-with-distributed-money/2007/05/06</a>), then I believe we have very strong grounds to see a strong expansion of p2p-based modalities in the physical sphere. See also Kevin Carson's book manuscript about trends in decentralized production technology (
<a href="http://mutualist.blogspot.com/">http://mutualist.blogspot.com/</a>)<br><br>I'm not suggesting that all these trends automatically lead to an egalitarian society, but I'm suggesting that these trends are very favourable to all those working on counter-institutions and new types of social relationships, and unprecedentally so.
<br><br>How is this all evolving in terms of the principal-agent problem, especially when there is no principal and agent involved? (and indeed no asymmetric information 'in principle', though it may occur 'in practice' because of dysfunctions). As far as I can see, the nature of peer governance is that leadership becomes both invitational a priori, and one of arbitrage a posteriori, and the main problem is for leadership to become a bottleneck rather than a facilitator. I believe the essential logic of such emerging governance systems is the avoidance of the emergence of collective individuals. A recent example is the conflict at couchsurfing, and how it generates, not a forking, but an open movement to go beyond the core leadership as bottleneck, see
<br><a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/forking-at-the-couchsurfing-hospitality-network/2007/05/08">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/forking-at-the-couchsurfing-hospitality-network/2007/05/08</a> <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 5/7/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">R Labossiere</b> <<a href="mailto:admin@klooj.net">admin@klooj.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">
</font><div><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">Thanks Sam for the summary of David Bollier's paper,
which is itself a summary of his notes from an Aspen Institute round table. I
remember the buzz around "push" vs. "pull" models -- the ever
finer articulation of consumer demand that becomes determinative of
production -- but hadn't thought about it lately, esp. in relation
to social networks.</font></font></span></div>
<div><span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span></span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">More people creating
more themselves and being more active in creative processes is a
good thing, like education, lesbian moms and apple
pie:) </font></font></span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">One problem, much discussed
here and on other lists, is about</font></font></span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"> effectiveness and
exploitation; and that's where I'm thinking agency theory might be
useful. </font></span></div>
<div><span></span><span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">What I'm interested in is the link between
creation and reception, between creator and audience,
where </font></font></span><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">are a number
of agent-like tasks:</font></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial"></font></font></span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">a) contact and relationship
building</font></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">b) presentation and
promotion</font></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">c) value
judgments</font></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">d) aggregation of responses,
and </font></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">e) publication of response
results. </font></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span></span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial"></font></font></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></span></div>
<div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">Agency theory has, in my very limited
understanding of it, arisen to resolve problems between principals and agents
due to incomplete and asymetric information, inefficiencies that stifle
effective representation. (Bernard Roddy pointed out that the theory is
'burdened' by the business context where these issues tend to
have critical economic consequences, but I don't see that as a reason to
discount the theoretical apparatus as such: an "agent" that fails to
build good networks, misrepresents the work or improperly values it, or who
doesn't appropriately provide feedback or celebrate success needs to
held accountable, whether we're talking about Chrysler or
MySpace:)</font></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span></span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial">So the question that arises is whether in the
p2p environment of the Web, agency is as efficient and effective as we
tend to think it is.</font></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span></span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">Speaking strictly from personal experience, within relatively
small networks like this one, I feel represented and, in terms of the
esteemed audience who I hope have read this far down in this post, it seems
quite efficient.</font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span></span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">anyway, this is intended only to open
discussion...</font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span></span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">Sam's summary of Bollier's paper:</font></span></span></div><span class="q">
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><a href="http://www.cooperationcommons.com/Documents/EntryView?id=129" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.cooperationcommons.com/Documents/EntryView?id=129
</a></font></span></span></div></span>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">Bollier's original paper:</font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><a href="http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/2005InfoTechText.pdf" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/2005InfoTechText.pdf</a></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">The principal-agent problem on Wikipedia</font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem
</a></font></span></span></div>
<div><span><span></span></span><span><span></span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span><span></span></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><span><span><font face="Arial" size="2">- Robert Labossiere</font></span></span></div>
<div><span><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial"></font></font></span><font face="Arial" size="2"> </font></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://distributedcreativity.org" target="_blank">
distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc" target="_blank">
http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/" target="_blank">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br></blockquote>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer alternatives.<br><br>Wiki and Encyclopedia, at <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>; Blog, at
<a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a>; Newsletter, at <a href="http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p">http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p</a><br><br>Basic essay at
<a href="http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499">http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499</a>; interview at <a href="http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html">http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
</a>; video interview, at <a href="http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm">http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm</a><br><br>The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by
<a href="http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm">http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm</a>