Edit text of this page (date of last change: March 20, 2009 9:26 (diff))
===July 24, 2007 : BarCampBank![]() |
=== March 20, 2009 : Please feel welcome to experiment #ExploraCoeur = |
Just put some first credentials on the ![]() ![]() ![]() |
;#ExploraCoeur is recruiting:currently experimenting metacurrencies based on Twollars and TwitBank platforms. Please feel free to tweet @exploracoeurexp to join us and help to find out a grammar for our first worldwide thankyou currency. Please join EmmanuelGadenne. |
===July 22, 2007 : BarCampBank![]() Our friends from CommunityChest could be opened to build an area in SecondLife dedicated to opendiscussions for BarCampBank ![]() ![]() ===July 21, 2007= I need help planning BarCampBankPhiladelphia ![]() Hi David. Welcome here, and ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ===June 2, 2007= SamRose ![]() ![]() === March 21, 2007= I wrote a summary of the next steps for the P2PMoney ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 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: * the blogging community: A good place to start is ![]() * to wiki communities: perhaps by creating a page or message in wiki communities we think will likely be interested. ![]() * other online communities, mailing lists, etc. It will probably take some time to build up interest in this idea. 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 ![]() OK, I quickly copied the current content on the main page to ![]() -- FredericBaud ![]() === March 11, 2007 -> build a complete vCard diary hCard attempt: <html> <div id="hcard-Samuel-Rose" class="vcard"> <img style="float:left; margin-right:4px" src=" ![]() <a class="url fn" href=" ![]() <div class="org">Social synergy</div> <a class="email" href=" ![]() <div class="adr"> <span class="locality">Holt</span> , <span class="region">MI</span> , <span class="postal-code">48842</span> <span class="country-name">USA</span> </div> <div class="tel">517-242-7783 (cell)</div> <a class="url" href="aim:goim?screenname=str9960">AIM</a> <p style="font-size:smaller;">This <a href=" ![]() ![]() </div> </html> Currently invested in MicroFormats'advocacy, I've dropped some hCards on personal pages. Think it could be relevant to help all our members and the french ones to build hCards. Our canonical set could be found ![]() ![]() ![]() <html> <div id="hcard-Jean-Christophe-Capelli" class="vcard"> <img style="float:left; margin-right:4px" src=" ![]() <a class="url fn" href=" ![]() <div class="org">BarCampBank ![]() ![]() <div class="adr"> <span class="locality">Paris</span> <span class="country-name">France</span> </div> <p style="font-size:smaller;">This hcard <a href=" ![]() ![]() <p style="font-size:smaller;"><a href=" ![]() </div> </html> Ready to help you if you met any difficulties. --ChristopheDucamp ![]() === March 10, 2007 A pointer to Meetings, can we make the idea of having a BarCampBank ![]() === March 07, 2007 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 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() === March 03, 2007 Discussion moved to P2PMoney ![]() === March 01, 2007 Discussion was moved to BarCampBankLicense. === February 25, 2007 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 ![]() ![]() 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 ![]() ![]() 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 ![]() ![]() Discard economics 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? Extend economics 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. Perhaps instead: 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. So, I would definitely agree that some of what is happeing with OpenSource and OpenContent can be explained with economic theory alone. But definitely not all of it. 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 ![]() SamRose ![]() ![]() === February 16, 2007 This link to an article on ![]() ![]() === February 10, 2007 <html> <iframe src=" ![]() <iframe src=" ![]() </html> Just a small proposal added on ![]() ![]() ![]() Are Jyte's surveys necessarily two-sided questions? I think we would need a voting mechanism for subjects similar to what we have with ![]() ![]() === February 09, 2007 I just sent an email to invite ![]() ![]() ![]() Colin made a comment on BarCampBank3 ![]() ![]() Lift07 must have been a hell of a conference. Thanks ![]() ![]() ![]() |
If the page becomes too long, messages can be put to the ForumArchives
(unlike with other wiki pages, content here is not meant to be refactored or kept for eternity)
![]() |
|
... add your name