The iCommons is a network. A network is defined by nodes that are connected by links. Even to the terminology designated by the board of “nodes” for the projects linked together in the iCommons, we are a network.
I suggest that in the discussions among iCommoners, what is known about network structure and theory should guide how such things as inclusion and governance are done. We should be very careful about getting drawn into a storm brewed by pre-network theories of organization.
In the 1950s when I was studying political science at Northwestern University, the chairman of the department, Professor William McGovern, taught us that power in a political structure can only move in two directions: down (tyranny) or up (democracy). McGovern died before network theory came along, but as his student I would tell him now that there is a third way that power moves in the 21st century: laterally, sideways, virtually, omindirectionally.
The iCommons can be seen as a first grand experiment of a global network toward a shared purpose. Obviously that purpose has to open for the network to function, and the purpose of opening cultures seems ideal to me for this grand experiment.
My sense of the leadership at final iSummit ’06 meeting was to aim to link up nodes — and not to create a top-down control. Out of 20th century habit there is a natural urge to push for power from a bottom up. But a network has no top or bottom. It seems possible to me that iCommons can be a network that is a conversation through the year and a congregation at an annual iSummit. If that can happen, the achievements of the component nodes can be both unimpaired and enthused by being a node in the iCommons network.
Where would I tell Professor McGovern that the leadership and financing are in the network? My best guess is that they will continue to emerge dynamically and pattern themselves in response to the activities of the nodes — and not the other way around. That is what happened to create iSummit ’06, and I hope it continues.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
July 19th, 2006 at 10:48 am
not true. 1. is not the first (is not the free software movement a global network toward a shared purpose?) 2. It’s not global, it’s mainly (and controlled by) US and Europe.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
If iCommons follows the form that the free software movement has, that seems to me a good thing. The iCommons is different from the software movement because the software movement networked ideas primarily, not people. (I’m splitting hairs perhaps.) I do stand by the idea that iCommons is a first grand experiment, and I hope very much that it will become truly global in fulfillment, as well as it is now in intent.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:31 am
This is also a challenge to XXX above, who claims that the Commons is not global – I certainly don’t see it that way from this remote corner of the developing world.
If you are intrested, I have spelled out this argument in more detail in my blog at http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/gray_area