h a l f b a k e r yThis product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Recursive coordination portfolios
There's a social network site where everyone announces what they're working on and how they intend to implement it. They do the work and then come back. People enter a mode where they see what other people are working on. People raise suggestions how they could benefit from that change or requirement. The original author counter offers and asks for something in return for that change. The both users agree and the coordination is added to both of their portfolios. The social network lets the users manage, check and review the returns of their individual portfolios. | |
I think the world suffers from problem of committees, see
every corporate consortium, self regulatory organisation,
the inscalability of consulting, W3C ISO and other
standards agencies and every professional bar agency.
Committees never get anything done. There is also a
coordination problem
in the world. Rarely does government
and private industry work in lockstep for mutual benefit and
win-win scenarios and profit for everybody.
So rather than a committee. Everyone says what they're
going to do and retrieves feedback from the rest of
everybody else. And asks for suggestions for change. It
should all be public and votable.
There is also the problem of repeated work and
unnecessary work and conflicts of interest.
This could be done between every force in a market
including private industry and government, between
competitors and between companies not in the same
space.
Think every company in a shopping mall or every business
in a town or city. Or local business networking.
It could be done within an organisation and
interorganisational and internationally and interregionally.
When you add a coordination in your portfolio you are
advised to invest in more in that portfolio item (a bit like
adding money to an investment) or announcement
returns you received.
We can have scientific returns from coordination.
This is a new technology and trade and could be worth
billions.
[link]
|
| |
Isn't this just Twitter with a bit of business focus? |
|
| |
//So rather than a committee. Everyone says what they're going to do and retrieves feedback from the rest of everybody else. And asks for suggestions for change. It should all be public and votable.// |
|
| |
So, you want to turn individual decisions into committee decisions... in order to do away with committees? |
|
| |
Historically speaking the majority has almost always been on the wrong side of history.
It takes individual nobility to find ways through the shit we've been born into, not group-chat. |
|
| |
The problem with committees as they stand is that
people don't announce what they're doing. They draft
a thing of what they want and then ask for feedback
on it. The emphathasis is on the writing documents
back and forward. |
|
| |
I propose to change that to a model where you
announce what you ARE doing today. As part of your
everyday job. You write in plain terms what you are
doing. |
|
| |
Someone can read your update and then ask you to
generalise something or make the code available to
them or add an API for them to use. |
|
| |
Doers decide how things work, a standard that
nobody implements is less useful than an
implementation that works. |
|
| |
I'm sorry [chron] but as a fully autonomous being responsible for the outcomes of every decision I make... there is not time to announce or to open up for debate things which need to be decided on the spot. |
|
| |
By the time any decision goes through that many check-points... it's too late to implement. |
|
| |
Hence the problem of government being in the business of making more jobs for themselves at the sake of every other thing around them. |
|
| |
It should be reactive to work that has been done. |
|
| |
You can parallelize the posting of the work you're
going to do and the work itself. People should reply
with an offer of what they offer for something with
the understanding that the work has been done. |
|
| |
I'm doing this, what shall you do for me if I share this
with you. Or generalise it. Or even document it. |
|
| |
Changes are expensive. There is currently no good
mechanism to share your work and have things
added to a portfolio of downstream and upstream
people. It's all informal social contracts. You cannot
even see what you depend on easily, that's work to
produce that report. How can you improve what you
cannot measure? You get what you measure. |
|
| |
My portfolio would be of many open source
programs, companies and vendors I have
relationships or subscriptions with, companies I am a
consumer of, operating systems and libraries. I would
have a mutual agreement to report bugs and fixes
and wants and any improvements I can do. And
funding. |
|
| |
I am a DevOps software engineer with a background
in computer science. I still find it easier to read
people's English description of a problem and
converting that to code than reading someone
complicated implementation that incorporates
memory management, security, lifetimes, other
features and details that aren't relevant to
understanding of the overall implementation. |
|
| |
How can you create a mutually beneficial relationship
with all your neighbours on a street? What can you all
do for eachother? How can you share your work? |
|
| |