[VBbuilders] [OK] Re: Why and how work together?

[Mark Petz]

Actually when I joined the NING I had already considered Wave a better
option. As did at least one other participant in Vienna, but Franz and
others were insistent that NING was the way to go.

I let it ride - we want outcomes  NOT arguments.

Some of these questions here seem tangential to the real issue. THAT is NING
is not free, where do we move the content and networks so that they still
function.

Already we are working in communities of interests. If anything there is a
lack of strategic planning with a long term goal (3 yr and 5yr plans) and so
instead we end up with a piece meal project approach that does not lead to a
manual or real pattern language to do anything.

Have a strategic plan for outcomes and the tools will come as those working
will need to find them to do the job. Right now people are looking at pieces
not holistically.

My own view is that appropedia is a good way to go as the guys there have
the right sentiments and there is the right culture for openness (I guess
you all know that Google Wave was developed in Australia - RIGHT? I guess
you have all checked out Appropedia AND seen that its in Australia - RIGHT?
And I guess you have seen that the guys behind it are Engineers Without
Borders - RIGHT?

Ciaokka!

Markus

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Sam Putman <atmanistan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > So where we are is with this flourishing of myriad initiatives, each
> trying
> > to re-invent the wheel and duplicating efforts,
> >
> > BUT, we can use each other's differential strengths to rally around
> certain
> > initiatives for certain goals, and around others for other goals,
> >
> >
> > at this stage, this is unavoidable,
> >
> > Michel
>
> This is an invisible consequence of poor protocol design on the part
> of the Internet community.
>
> Back in the (g)olden days, the trend was to solve a communication
> challenge by designing a protocol that was robust, easy to implement,
> and would therefore let any server anywhere implement the protocol.
> Such are email, usenet, IRC, and HTML, and the suite of lower-level
> and supporting technologies.
>
> bittorrent is an example of a protocol from the more modern era which
> was developed correctly. It is inevitable, unstoppable, and
> democratic. These protocols can succumb to poor design (as usenet
> largely has) but when executed well they are what let us organize in a
> peer-to-peer fashion.
>
> Internet existed in competition with many walled gardens: Compuserve,
> Prodigy, AOL and the countless bulletin boards. All are gone, or
> assimilated into the collective; for the most part, the work that went
> into making them, the content they hosted, is lost.
>
> Facebook may look 'too big to fail' but AOL once bought Time-Warner. A
> walled garden is simply not an Internet-compatible solution; what's
> needed is a Social Networking Protocol, something that works in a
> fine-grained way to let someone define their own social network across
> the entire Internet, without prejudice of provider, and interact with
> that as they move from node to node.
>
> Wave, from my perusal of it, has (more than) what it takes to do this.
> Modern Internet standards tend to have the relatively obese quality of
> Wave, with XML as the shining example. Wave has a long way to go
> before we can set up a Wave server as fast and easily as we can throw
> up Apache now, but when that time comes, Wave may well have what it
> takes.
>
> In the meantime, we'll muddle along with forums, Drupal sites, and a
> thousand and one passwords. However, if we keep in mind the kind of
> architecture we actually need, it will be faster and easier to
> eventually get it.
>
> cheers,
> -Sam Putman.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://globalvillages.org/pipermail/videobridgebuilders/attachments/20100420/dd7d8120/attachment.html>