kwerb on #supernova2008 (+sn): Supernova IRC logs are at http://www.zeitgeist.com:8080/log/supernova_bot/supernova2008 (Tue Jun 03 2008 14:02:25 GMT-0400 (EDT))

just in

-->|

PhilHawksworth (n=Phil@83-244-203-202.cust-83.exponential-e.net) has joined #supernova2008

welcome, phil

Thanks. Hello all.

-->|

pauld (n=chatzill@83-244-203-202.cust-83.exponential-e.net) has joined #supernova2008

hi, paul

(waves)

* pauld

waves to all

that's us!

-->|

tantek (n=tantek@adsl-63-195-114-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) has joined #supernova2008

-->|

hbgreenstein (n=chatzill@dsl254-069-250.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net) has joined #supernova2008

hola tantek, howard

greetings chris

hey there Chris Carfi, Tantek

Eileen Clegg rocks!

Eileen is an inspiration

indeed. here's her site: http://www.visualinsight.net/

Wow. Illustrated 'map' of the call. Very cool

-->|

P-Air (n=chatzill@c-69-181-19-173.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #supernova2008

-->|

dopp_ (n=chatzill@adsl-71-146-20-244.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net) has joined #supernova2008

-->|

mhg (n=chatzill@0x573c3a8a.bynqu1.broadband.tele.dk) has joined #supernova2008

'ello, sarahdopp

-->|

rayval (n=raysms@adsl-64-160-119-238.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net) has joined #supernova2008

=-=

dopp_ is now known as sarahdopp

hello!

|<--

mhg has left irc.freenode.net (Client Quit)

-->|

godsdog (n=chatzill@h-67-102-172-19.sttnwaho.covad.net) has joined #supernova2008

criterion for open: "accessibility"

I did not catch the fellow's name that is currently talking, who is it?

Elliot Maxwell is speaking

tks

transparent tyranny

open-ness is a continuum

open "good" or "bad"?..."it depends."

you mean like Google is doing ;)

yes there are degrees of opening the kimono

user-configurable openness

distribution is near free but access control is very expensive, hence the dilemma in all of this

security costs $$$

aka "information wants to be free"

...as does the training/education req'd to use said security mechanisms

open/confidential discrimination by the user--someone has to be dedicated to sustaining the hues of privacy that color our interpersonal information

<--|

spector has left #supernova2008 ("Leaving")

-->|

kc_ (n=chatzill@dslb-084-063-230-029.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #supernova2008

@godsdog: hence the cost

aw, Mitch, there you go, trying to nuance

Scott mcnealy told me privacy is over

P-Air -- hence my investment in such a system!

nice :)

:-)

Howard -- Scott's been too black-and-white for the past decade!

open is the new open

it's easy to see it in clay shirky's recent book ;)

is it becoming easier to control and influence society as it becomes open and highly connected? could Facebook, Twitter etc be used as a step to a tyranny?

elliott maxwell background: http://www.supernova2008.com/go/speaker-list2#maxwell

@pauld: brad templeton gives a great example of theoretical facebook tyranny

-->|

abroome (n=chatzill@host64-111.cablelabs.com) has joined #supernova2008

in England in the 1800s it was illegal to export textile equipment. Closed source machinery.

But a couple of crafty New Englanders were able to sneak into British factories and reverse engineer the concepts.

those wily new englanders. :-)

openness is a continuum

based on accessibility and responsiveness

lets see if that helps them win the NBA championship ;)

is an emerging theory of value of sharing

disrupting the control=incentive theory of innovation

-->|

johnborthwick (n=chatzill@static-71-249-179-251.nycmny.east.verizon.net) has joined #supernova2008

craig venter background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

should mitigate the patents silliness

openness in medical trials is a problem -- regulations prevent companies from spreading information about a trial openly, because it is perceived as "advertising," yet the patient can benefit by knowing about trials and their opportunity to monetize their condition..... http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=337

Craig Venter gave a mind blowing talk at TED http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/227

openness as a way to undo the patent system...nice

Jeremy Ruston (BT) is speaking now

Jeremy is referring to TiddlyWiki http://www.tiddlywiki.com

yet we cannot be open about patient's conditions out of respect for their privacy (Scott McNealy be damned) ;^> so, "open" is an instrumental problem, a phenomenon that changes due to the context of the anticipated exchange of information

isn't that always the case...think credit cards

didn't plan on sharing my transaction data w/marketers when registering...but there it went

-->|

Ace_NoOne (n=Ace@unaffiliated/acenoone) has joined #supernova2008

agreed mitch, context is key. if there was (huge "IF") a way to share information with "true" anonymity, there might be a happy medium

which is why VISA, the original form of the thing, is such an interesting example of collaborative governance -- I was on the Chaordic Commons board of trustees for several years, working with Dee Hock's ideas.

we don't depend on anonymity in real life, we depend on selective disclosure. so, we need a system that provides that reliably (no Twitter-like outtages) and responsibly (on clearly understandable terms)

"view source" on the web's original openness

back to the complicated access control issues that seem absent fm many of the conversations

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/0262062585/WebCampaigningDigitalSupplement.html

OpenID is not enough

yes, and programmers think in terms of established relationships, not evolving ones, when writing code to support sociability

Interview of Jeremy talking the history of TiddlyWiki here: http://www.vimeo.com/852169

programmers tend to think of abstractions of the real world, rather than deductions based on data sampled from the real world

i disagree with that, mitch. i think much of the code that's out there is how to get the "transaction" done = the one (and perhaps only) interaction != relationship

this is not restricted to "relationships" and established vs. evolving

so, Tantek, we're back to pre-Socratic existence....

Christopher -- the scope of the transaction is predefined and we drive users to it through a series of options.....

herding sheeple != "relationship" :-)

hehe

-->|

webb (n=chatzill@206.80.8.138) has joined #supernova2008

godsdog, it's not "back", programmers / computer science has its basis in mathematics

@tantek: social relationships do not have their basis in mathematics ;)

P-Air, correct

nor do most things that programmers attempt to represent symbolically about the real world

hence the disconnect between access control/identity issues and the needs of information to be free

mathematics has its basis in Pythagorean mysticism, too. there's a sense of completing something immanent in code that doesn't necessarily exist there. And, having cofounded BuzzLogic, I agree, social relationships can be described by mathematics, but are not founded in mathematics

-->|

Phil_Admin (n=chatzill@ppp-71-139-0-200.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net) has joined #supernova2008

=-=

Phil_Admin is now known as PhilWolff

P Air - my information doesn't need to be free. I want to own my info.

if you want it, pay me.

hey PhilWolff :)

Welcome, Phil

hi, all

hi, phil. jeremy ruston is up on the ccall.

I hear that @hbgreenstein

but why pay you? in and of itself your info is worthless

info is temporal

value at one point != value at another point

and how are we to know your information is worthwhile without examining it?

howard... I agree!

hypothesis: info is temporal, data is not

value is contextual. the same information will be worth much in one situation and nothing in another. how to deal with both without disclosing all personal data in a way that drains it of value is the Big Problem

info is valuable, data is much less valuable

hey, it's my data. Of course it's of value.

Seriously, there should be a way to offer a value stream of my data

without me giving everything away, or opening my privacy

yes, Howard, there should.

VRM?

howard, that's EXACTLY what adriana lukas and alec moffet are doing with the "MINE"

Agent-based negotiation

VRM: an example of defining the transaction before the relationship

This was something I wrote about in 94, so

it is worth pursuing, still

when we share our location.. our data may be more valuable

not bragging, just remembering my days as a grad student

and yes Stuart

location is of value as well

to the starbucks I'm in front of, for example

<kwerb>

OK, I'm going to lead some discussion on the call. But please start sending questions for Chris to relay into the conversation.

VRM is about defining the relationship first i.e. on MY terms

our info is not formated in ways that is really tradeable today

@Casablanca: but you don't have recourse to defining a relationship without a transaction

this was what the Root Vault idea was, no?

kind of

Root Vault hoped to express preferences through attention data

@godsog

yes, but they couldn't figure out the value of that

Google has their famous 20% personal project time. Do you see open evolving to 20% available to other companies, sharing human capital more directly? Not just work product and IP?

@godsdog the transaction is the motivation for the relationship

@Casablanca: most of our relationships, especially in social contexts, exist before transactions. VRM has the cart pulling the horse

@godsdog: i don't think anyone involved in VRM would disagree with conversation/relationship being precursors to transactions. transaction is side-effect.

@godsdog we may be agreeing here; you mentioned that "VRM: an example of defining the transaction before the relationship", I'm saying that the relationship ought to come first on the web, just as it does in real life = VRM

More about Jeremy's corner of BT: http://www.osmosoft.com

@christopercarfi: I've been involved in that discussion throughout its history, but find people acknowledge this shortcoming, but don't want to deal with it. I keep hearing that VRM and other applications cannot exist without the parameters of a transaction. And I am fine with VRM for transactions, but I want to facilitate other types of interaction.

same @Casablanca as to chris -- we may be agreeing

:-)

Q. Do you see the tools of open work changing organization structure at BT?

@godsdog: then we're very certainly agreeing.

thx phil. got it in the queue.

I had a great conversation with Robert Shiller, the Princeton economist, about this problem -- here's the podcast, which I did for a company I advise: http://www.ratcliffeblog.com/Shiller-OpenYear.mp3

Q: what's the value proposition in "controlling" developers

crowdsurfing: you throw yourself out there, and if you're lucky the crowd catches you. and if they don't, it's humiliating.

A world where we are all Eddie Vedder is what we want?

you're on!

Tantek is speaking

tantek cites: emotions/motivations: Fear (of change) and Greed (overcoming fear of change).

what if the whole purpose of the company was not to make, but to share, a profit -- that's the chaordic model, when you don't weigh it down with ideological baggage

early developments on Social Graph came from the web, not from the companies

imho, these sharing media are helping companies develop trust in people, both as individuals but also in publics.

companies not used to really engaging w/people on earnest trust