<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hello Maintainers, <br>
</p>
<p>I participate in a few open source projects [0] and decisions are
often taken either by an "emergent" consensus or by a "do-cracy"
in which people build something which might stick around. I noted
that it seems to be hard to get "conceptual integrity" [1],
meaning that a single or few principles can be used to explain why
the software is the way it is. A rough hypothesis would be that
defining, keeping and negotiating conceptual integrity needs a
power concentration which is hard to achieve in a system where
"free individuals" take their decisions where no or few
representational and legitimized actors exist that could enforce
rules/principles that others must/will follow. <br>
</p>
<p> I expected discussions of this to be easy to find, however the
closest I found so far were:</p>
<p>- The discussions of Standards in Relation to Hayek’s views on
economy and freedom in <i>"Standards: Recipes for Reality" </i><i>[2]</i><i>
</i>(which has few direct relation to peer production settings) <br>
</p>
<p>- "<i>Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness." </i>which
discusses the relationship of <i>Peer Production, Openness</i><i>
and Neoliberalism </i>(but not standard setting or coherence)<i><br>
</i></p>
<p><br>
I wonder if you know of literature discussing the (non)
negotiation of standards and conceptual integrity in context that
value a libertarian, free-individuals-focussed peer production
culture.</p>
<p>Kind Regards, <br>
</p>
<p> Jan<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[0] Mediawiki, Libre Office, Open Source Design<br>
</p>
<p>[1] See Brook’s Mythical Man Month or this:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.c2.com/?ConceptualIntegrity">http://wiki.c2.com/?ConceptualIntegrity</a><br>
It could be also described as "local standards" which a project
follows. </p>
<p>[2] Busch, Lawrence. 2013. <i>Standards: Recipes for Reality</i>.
MIT Press Ltd, p291: "For [Hayek], habits that are formed
unconsciously were considerably more desirable than those formed
consciously. What he failed to see was that this merely enshrines
the existing order as somehow always more desirable than any
alternative imagined future.", which has an interesting
resemblance to Jo Freeman’s "Tyranny of Structurelessness"</p>
<p>[3] Tkacz, Nathaniel. 2014. <i>Wikipedia and the Politics of
Openness</i>. Chicago ; London: University of Chicago Press.</p>
<div class="csl-bib-body" style="line-height: 1.35; margin-left:
2em; text-indent:-2em;"> <span class="Z3988"
title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fzotero.org%3A2&rft_id=urn%3Aisbn%3A978-0-226-19230-7&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Wikipedia%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Openness&rft.place=Chicago%20%3B%20London&rft.publisher=University%20of%20Chicago%20Press&rft.aufirst=Nathaniel&rft.aulast=Tkacz&rft.au=Nathaniel%20Tkacz&rft.date=2014&rft.tpages=224&rft.isbn=978-0-226-19230-7&rft.language=Englisch"></span></div>
<p> </p>
<div class="csl-bib-body" style="line-height: 1.35; margin-left:
2em; text-indent:-2em;"> <span class="Z3988"
title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fzotero.org%3A2&rft_id=urn%3Aisbn%3A978-0-262-52505-3&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Standards%3A%20Recipes%20for%20Reality&rft.publisher=MIT%20Press%20Ltd&rft.edition=Reprint&rft.aufirst=Lawrence&rft.aulast=Busch&rft.au=Lawrence%20Busch&rft.date=2013-09-16&rft.tpages=402&rft.isbn=978-0-262-52505-3&rft.language=Englisch"></span></div>
</body>
</html>