Markus Schatten wrote:
But what happens if the author doesn’t want to add some good improvements send by participants to his application? Will this slow down development?
Probably not, because others will fork his application and create a new one with the proposed improvements, and eventually if they are better their application will be more used and better than the former.
Now take this in a political context and see what happens. Say Mirko starts a political project based on TOP. If someone wants to change the rules and do harm to the project Mirko won’t allow such behavior, e.g. he will filter the “harmfull actions” out of his project. But if Mirko is the “bad guy” and doesn’t allow for changes which will probably improve his project the others can fork his project and filter him out. Autopoiesis will do the rest, e.g. people (public) behavior will decide which project is the better which will eventually result with the commonly accepted best solution for this particular project, while the other solutions which may evolve eventually die.
I have to add one more thing. By setting TOP we are enabling optimum info processing where interested persons can directly compete/cooperate on the places where their voice/action will matter the most. This offers even possibility that if Mirko is “bad guy” to be leached by “good guys”, which is actually paradigmatic shift to current situation in politics.
So, I think OPEN in TOP should stand for fully OPEN to ALL public but with adequate mechanisms (e.g. filtering) which will allow such openness without harm. This also subsumes that all information ever made TOP must remain TOP - e.g. no information ever published as TOP should be ever deleted so eventual filtering and forks remain possible.
Indeed. I think we should add this if it is not done already.
ATB,
Gale
Best regards
Markus Schatten, dipl. inf. e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1