Christopher Allen

Excellent project. I think identity and trust are pending issues that need to be explored, perhaps with self-sovereign identity[1]. Curious to see how this project evolves. Fwiw, I've been working on a digital credentialing system for education/training and have testing blockchain notarization. I was aware of this project and very happy to see it release. [1] http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-i…

This is really interesting. Are you using concepts from self-sovereign identity¹²? Do you think there is a relevant intersection? ¹ http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-i… ² https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-primer/

The author decries that governance and tragedies of the commons are for inert resources. This is not the case, but perhaps this thinking pervades software projects. We can learn from Elinor Ostrom's economics work, as well as from Christopher Allen's thinking/writing about the commons of open source projects in particular. Ostrom’s Design Principles for Collective Governance of the Commons http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2015/11/a-revised-ostroms-design-princ…

I'm surprised nobody mentioned self-sovereign identity and digital identity. Here are some excellent links about the subjects: http://www.moxytongue.com/2016/02/self-sovereign-identity.html http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2016/04/the-path-to-self-soverereign-i… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_identity https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2017/07/02/beyond-public-key-… https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/ https://www.forgerock.com/

I actually thought Randy Farmer touched on this in his Google talk on "Building Web Reputation Systems" - but maybe I saw it somewhere else, years ago. Like this: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2006/08/using_5star_rat.html At any rate I thought it was common knowledge that 5-point ratings have issues - especially as a "social rating system"?

The advantage of calling out Dunbar's number is that it explains why there's an upper bound of some kind. But yes. 150 is far too high a number. I'd say it should be closer to 50. It makes me sad to link to this, since the PARC blog no longer hosts his images, but it's more than nothing: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/10/dunbar_group_co.html

Would be interested in where you read that if you find it again - below is a link to an article that says the optimal team size is 5 to 8 based on a Dunbar analysis. 3 in unstable as too often 1 person feels left out, 4 is an even number so risk of split vote. http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html

You raise a good point: Why not just take care of myself and move on and not care about anyone else, or if I care why raise a finger or expend an ounce of energy when it can't benefit me and could actually hurt me? If other people get ripped off, who cares, right? Heck, maybe even in some twisted way I benefit when other people get screwed. Relatively speaking, if they get screwed and I don't, I'm better off (some kind of reverse competition or whatever name has been given to it). For me, however, this "me, me, me" mentality is the core of what's wrong with America right now. There are too many people who only care about themselves, who won't spend a dime of their money or a second of their time to stand up for someone who can't do anything for them. Not so much here and in our community, which mostly has an abundance mentality and knows that it's not about what you can get, but what you can give, and do give. That is why I'm spending my time, opening myself up criticism, etc. I will get my money back regardless. It's $129, who cares, really. I've been through an IPO, made multiple successful real estate and stock investments, and done over a billion dollars in deals since 1999. Who the fuck cares? I quite that and moved to Europe in 2006 and haven't "worked" since. Again, who cares? Nobody. It doesn't matter. The point is not about money, it's about standing up for other people, people, who might not have the ability, time, energy, or whatever to stand up…

A very successful "free intraprise" system that creates very free small groups is underway in the Forest Service. The focus is not on external products and services, but on doing the work that is needed by the line officers. Biological surveys, Oracle database management, trail building, planning, etc. "Enterprise teams compete for these jobs. Line officers with budgets can hire outside contractors, one of several competing enterprise teams in that business, full time employees, etc. The enterprise teams have most of the freedoms of a start-up. They have internal "bank accounts" that they can carry earnings over from year to year. This provides security which allows risk taking. They chose their own products and services and set their own prices. They choose who to hire and have limited ability to fire (from the team, not the Forest Service) team members who do not work out. This is an area of weakness, but not enough to crater the system. The result is very good. The intrapreneurs (people who behave like entrepreneurs inside a larger organization) are 1.8 times as productive as the average government employee and far happier. They tend to keep working after becoming eligible for retirement. Most say they would never go back to the old bureaucratic way. There don't seem to be any fist fights. One team got too big and is breaking up into smaller enterprises. The system was designed based on the book "The End of Bureaucracy and he Rise of the Intelligent Organization" by…