‎Discussion

← Older revision Revision as of 17:11, 15 March 2019
Line 71: Line 71:
 
Michel Bauwens:
 
Michel Bauwens:
   
"I think your article is based on a false premise, i.e. that in a p2p society, everyone interacts with everyone, but that is NOT the case; in fact, it is based on stigmergic self-allocation between the needs of the system and the skills and offerings of the participants. This is why we have p2p as 'the global coordination of small group dynamics" because the average number in a team in Linux is four, and in Wikipedia, just one ... We already know that at least in production, stigmergy is possible at scale. Of course, this is only valid for what is abundant, where no 'scarcity allocation' is needed. In the field of scarcity, we still need to discuss the hard issues of democracy at scale, but there also there are interesting innovations. First of all open book accounting and open supply chains allow for large scale coordination ; new governance models like soiocracy, holocracy and the Viable System Model are especially designed to scale small groups on a recursive scale."
+
"I think your article is based on a false premise, i.e. that in a p2p society, everyone interacts with everyone, but that is NOT the case; in fact, it is based on stigmergic self-allocation between the needs of the system and the skills and offerings of the participants. This is why we have p2p as 'the global coordination of small group dynamics" because the average number in a team in Linux is four, and in Wikipedia, just one ... We already know that at least in production, stigmergy is possible at scale. Of course, this is only valid for what is abundant, where no 'scarcity allocation' is needed. In the field of scarcity, we still need to discuss the hard issues of democracy at scale, but there also there are interesting innovations. First of all open book accounting and open supply chains allow for large scale coordination ; new governance models like sociocracy, holacracy and the Viable System Model are especially designed to scale small groups on a recursive scale."
 
+
 
+
[[Category:Democracy]]
+
   
 
Alessio Bini:  
 
Alessio Bini:  
   
"I think my assumption is correct and, increasing the scale of democracy, human being need to create sub-groups in which it's possible arguing own idea whit the other persons. This is the essence of democracy for me. But, it's a logical conseguence descending by definition of "sociocracy". In the circle, to obtain the "consent"  
+
"I think my assumption is correct and, increasing the scale of democracy, human being need to create sub-groups in which it's possible arguing own idea whit the other persons. This is the essence of democracy for me. But, it's a logical consequence descending by definition of "sociocracy". In the circle, to obtain the "consent", it's necessary discuss every argument or counter-argument of every participant, relatively to an idea. From a mathematical point of view, it's precisely the case of permutations and we fall in a problem NP-complete. We can organize a large scale discussion only if only one member of the circle claims an idea and the other memebers can only discuss with him his idea, without arguing the counter-idea of the other people. With this limitation, the computational complexity collapse in a problem P-complete.
, it's necessary discuss every argument or counter-argument of every partecipant, relatively to an idea. From a mathematical point of view, it's precisely the case of permutations and we fall in a problem NP-complete. We can organize a large scale discussion only if only one member of the circle claims an idea and the other memebers can only discuss with him his idea, without arguing the counter-idea of the other people. With this limitation, the computational complexity collapse in a problem P-complete.
+
 
In the case of "holacracy", we have hierarchized circle. Hierarchy conflicts with the P2P definition. Hierarchy it's a form of gouvernement, but not a P2P gouvernement. The "P" means peers and not "superior" or "inferior".
 
In the case of "holacracy", we have hierarchized circle. Hierarchy conflicts with the P2P definition. Hierarchy it's a form of gouvernement, but not a P2P gouvernement. The "P" means peers and not "superior" or "inferior".
At the end, "stigmergic" case: does it permit a collapse of computational complexity? Sure! The informations paths create sub-groups of dialoguing people. Ethical choises can be the uman version of ants pheromones. This theme is treated in "Good and Evil in a P2P context".  
+
At the end, "stigmergic" case: does it permit a collapse of computational complexity? Sure! The informations paths create sub-groups of dialoguing people. Ethical choices can be the uman version of ants pheromones. This theme is treated in "Good and Evil in a P2P context".  
If Aristote and Rousseau, form very distant ages, claims by unison that democracy cannot permit large scale they will have valid arguments.
+
If Aristotle and Rousseau, form very distant ages, claims by unison that democracy cannot permit large scale they will have valid arguments.
 
If the sum of all sub-groups can be defined as a large scale P2P society, then I agree with this definition".
 
If the sum of all sub-groups can be defined as a large scale P2P society, then I agree with this definition".
  +
  +
  +
[[Category:Democracy]]

Published Date

Categories