Sharing Nicely

This is my second post as part of the Open Governance course at P2PU. Leigh Blackall generously agreed to facilitate the week – by posting a set of background resources, and asking questions – about the difference between online projects that are “groups” versus “networks” and if governance is an appropriate framework to think about online projects. He asks:

1. Is governance an appropriate framework for thinking about online projects?
2. Will the desire to organise, centralise and ultimately govern, always be a need for people in an online future?
3. Is the individualism implicit in networks too problematic for people with cultural, family or political backgrounds that value collective identities?

I have struggled with the questions, because they rely on definitions of “group” and “network” that I find flawed. This whiteboard diagram created by Stephen Downes provides a quick overview. According to the diagram, groups are inherently closed, coordinated by leaders (who hold centralized power) and distribute information in a trickle down way. Networks on the other hand are diverse, open, and distributed rather than distributing. Groups have vision statements; networks don’t. To me this dichotomy and especially the loaded definition of the term group doesn’t make sense or reflect the reality of online collaboration. At least one commenter felt the same way, which makes me hope I am not completely on the wrong track:

“You create a straw dog in groups and then go on to attack it.”

Furthermore, by using these definitions (which I don’t agree with) we seem to get distracted from the key question that I find useful in the context of open governance, which is “How can individuals who have overlapping goals, collaborate with each other online in order to achieve them?”

1. Is governance an appropriate framework for thinking about online projects?

Yes it is. To add even more definitions to this blog post, I think it is especially useful if we define it broadly as the processes by which groups of individuals make decisions and take actions, and the structures through which these processes are implemented. I think this is quite different from the way Leigh uses the term. If I understand him correctly, he focuses on the process and structure through which some individuals govern other individuals. Nevertheless even if we considered governance in a narrow sense, I still find it an important lens through which to look at online projects, because governance will shape how these projects operate, and what they achieve — both collectively and for the individuals involved.

2. Will the desire to organise, centralise and ultimately govern, always be a need for people in an online future?

I don’t think that there is an innate desire in everyone to “centralise” or “ultimately govern” other people; and online projects seem to show that the opposite is the case. Barriers to entry and exit are low, often it is just a matter of creating a user account (if that) and deciding to spend time on contributing to a project or not. Individuals can therefor choose to contribute to those communities that have structures and processes they find useful. This doesn’t mean individuals will not enter communities that have centralized governance structures, but they will do so only if they see a clear trade-off. Couch-surfing (www.couchsurfing.com) is an example, where many of the core decisions are taken by a few individuals, with very limited ability of community members to influence the decisions. I suspect that individual couch-surfers don’t really care as long as the platform let’s them do what they want - which is communicate with other couch-surfers. However, if there were two similar couch surfing communities, one that has transparent and inclusive governance mechanisms, and the other that is centralized and closed, more users will find the first option more attractive.

This is certainly an approach we are taking at P2PU. The only way to grow the project is to let a community of passionate individuals take it forward. That means actively reaching out to individuals and inviting them to take ownership and responsibility, rather than making decisions top-down,  and letting the project evolve in ways that might be unexpected to those of us who started it.

3. Is the individualism implicit in networks too problematic for people with cultural, family or political backgrounds that value collective identities?

I don’t think individualism is too problematic, or even related to individual backgrounds (which here seems to mean values or preferences). P2PU is a community of individuals that have overlapping values and objectives. In our communication with each other, we focus on those areas where our objectives overlap – there are lots of other areas and interests that we don’t share or coordinate.

This is a long post already, and I will close here, but it will be useful to come back and look at some of the insightful observations that Stephen and Leigh make in their broader networks vs. groups argument (I find many of their points very useful, even if I disagree with the definitions, and consider the way the argument is set-up distracting). What are the implications of openness, autonomy, or diversity on the ability of projects like P2PU to make decisions? In a concrete example, how does P2PU decide how to spend its limited resources? Who should be involved in that decision, and in what way?