[Themaintainers] Liberalism, Coherence and peer production

[jan]

Hello Maintainers,

Thanks für all the ideas and sources you shared so far :)

Michael wrote
 >  …Larry Wall and the history of Perl called “Having it both ways,”…

That was a great read! Thanks!

Julien wrote:
 >   I think the books « The Architecture of Open Source »
 > contains some elements about this topic

Yes, they do! I knew them before, but I can endorse them as well [1]

Andrew:
 > ... through its core argument that networks and standards
 >  are themselves  > /critiques. /
 > …
 > …
 > continuities between industrial practice and the
 > more contemporary sites discussed earlier in this thread, such as in
 > open source software and ‘peer production.’

Have yet to read the book – so far I can say that this is an interesting 
connection which I did not know of, yet [2].

 > the libertarian project seeks to erase or de-emphasize the role of the
 > state in the production of standards, I think it’s empirically false.

This good point – I did not consider the state-level so far.

 > Now, perhaps you’re referring to individuals who are taking
 > part in standards-setting who *perceive* that they can be effective in
 > the absence of government action?

Somewhat. The people I thought of were less into fighting state 
government but power structures in peer productions projects. These 
power structures were more like  administrators or project boards. My 
preliminary take would be that often "standard setting" would/should not 
be a thing from that perspective, since changes should rather "emerge" 
from "the [projectname] community".
Some examples and analysis can be found in  "The Emergence of 
Governance…" [3] and "Naturally emerging regulation…"[4].

Thanks for the interesting discussion so far, hope I can also give back 
with some of the references I share :)

Jan

[1] A bit off topic, but in case you like such things, you might also 
enjoy http://fabiensanglard.net/
[2] My go-to silicon valley/open source origin story was usually Fred 
Turner’s writings. e.g. Turner, Fred. 2006. From Counterculture to 
Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of 
Digital Utopianism. 1 edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[3] O’Mahony, Siobhán, and Fabrizio Ferraro. 2007. “The Emergence of 
Governance in an Open Source Community.” Academy of Management Journal 
50 (5): 1079–1106. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.27169153.
[4] Jemielniak, Dariusz. 2015. “Naturally Emerging Regulation and the 
Danger of Delegitimizing Conventional Leadership: Drawing on the Example 
of Wikipedia.” The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London, New 
Delhi and Thousand Oaks, CA.
[5] Freeman, Jo. 2013. “The Tyranny of Structurelessness.” Women’s 
Studies Quarterly 41 (3/4): 231–46.



On 28.08.19 18:15, Andrew Russell wrote:
> Hello Jan -
> 
> Thank you (and everyone who responded) for a fascinating thread!  I 
> thought I would write, belatedly, to tell you about my book from 2014, 
> called Open Standards and the Digital Age: History, Ideology, and 
> Networks 
> <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/open-standards-and-the-digital-age/3605A03EC74D80F2D30FE233C7BCBF35> (Cambridge 
> UP).  In particular, it takes up your suggestion...
> 
>> It would probably be also worth looking specifically into histories of 
>> standards and organizational forgetting to see how changes against the 
>> "status quo" were legitimized and actors mobilized.
> 
> ... through its core argument that networks and standards are themselves 
> /critiques. /Here’s a paragraph from the introduction:
> 
> "Throughout this book, I extend this line of inquiry to study acts of 
> critique (and, in many cases, creative destruction) that were advanced 
> by telephone and
> computer engineers. In some cases, these engineers offered explicit 
> critiques – clear remarks on existing political, market, and technical 
> issues – in private
> meetings, conference presentations, and written publications. In other 
> cases, their critiques and challenge to the status quo were implicit in 
> their creation of
> new artifacts, new software, and new institutions – collective acts of 
> recomposition and invention that were not always accompanied by explicit 
> claims of superiority. When we interpret engineering practice as acts of 
> implicit and explicit critique, we will be in a better position to 
> understand how new standards and new networks emerge as components of 
> broader visions that respond to the past and present and that seek to 
> redistribute power and control in the future. The “open systems” created 
> in the late twentieth century, and the “open standards” described by the 
> title of this book, thus constitute critiques and rejections of 
> ideologies of centralized control."
> 
> Much of the analysis is inspired by scholars on the history of standards 
> and business/technology that you probably already know: Yates/Murphy, 
> Abbate, Bowker/Star, Louis Galambos, Steve Usselman, and Richard John.
> 
> By connecting the processes for setting Internet standards with earlier 
> episodes in “consensus” standard-setting, such as in mechanical 
> engineering, telegraphy, telephone/utility poles, and so on, one of my 
> objectives was to show continuities between industrial practice and the 
> more contemporary sites discussed earlier in this thread, such as in 
> open source software and ‘peer production.’  My book argues for more 
> continuity, less rupture - standard fare for historians :) - and 
> describes how experiences become embodied not only into artifacts, as 
> you mention, but also into organizational rules and routines, such as 
> the consensus standards-setting process itself.  You probably know that 
> Yates and Murphy’s recent book Engineering Rules 
> <https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/engineering-rules> is really a 
> must-read on these topics, notably for its global view (something my 
> book lacked).
> 
> I’m less sure about what to say about terms that featured in your 
> initial email, “libertarian” and “free individuals.”  To the extent that 
> the libertarian project seeks to erase or de-emphasize the role of the 
> state in the production of standards, I think it’s empirically false. 
> Lee Vinsel is crystal clear on this issue in Moving Violations 
> <https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/moving-violations>, for example. 
> And scholars who take deep and (one might even say) sympathetic views of 
> industry self-regulation, for example Timothy Lytton’s excellent 
> Outbreak 
> <https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo35855002.html> on 
> food safety, see very important roles for governments in setting 
> standards. Now, perhaps you’re referring to individuals who are taking 
> part in standards-setting who *perceive* that they can be effective in 
> the absence of government action? I would agree that such individuals 
> make fascinating material for analysis, even if I would find their 
> self-perception to be, well, let’s just say I’m not convinced.
> 
> Anyway, I hope this is helpful, and good luck with your project - I know 
> you’ve got a community of people here who are really eager to hear what 
> you turn up!
> 
> Andy
>