Do we have the same idea of what an Open App Ecosystem is?

That's such a great thread !

If I follow, the 2 is the next stage of the 1 right ?

I'm not working on anything concrete for now, I thought a lot about the 2/ (I understand it as the logic next step of the 1/) and started to create methods/strategies to make it possible.

One of them is to create an event with all the person who want to make this 2/ possible.

After making the 2/ possible (and make money to develop something like a R&D department), we could easily think about making the 3/ possible (which seems for me A LOT of work if you don't have a pre-existing OAE working (to proove the concept is good to the users).

Because, I started research for the 3/ and it it seems very complex/blury for me at the moment. It seems for me it would be experimentation (maybe I'm wrong).

So actually, how I'd like to proceed (to make it the more concrete and possible) is : 1-2-3. And how I'd like to make it : a one week work shop with contributors cominf from all over the world.

What do you think about it ? I'd like to have some feedbacks :)

P.S. I am not sure those are all stages. #2 might follow somewhat logically from #1, but #3 might be in a different universe, and might not follow from either #1 or #2. Some of people who are working on something like #3 (e.g.. Holochain and SSB) start there, they have no previous collections of separate apps.

I started research for the 3/ and it it seems very complex/blury for me at the moment. It seems for me it would be experimentation (maybe I'm wrong).

You're not wrong.

a one week work shop with contributors cominf from all over the world.

I don't know if it is "ripe" yet, if you know what I mean. Enough contributors who have already done enough work on it to make progress in a week. I'm thinking about #3, which is what I want to work on. Holochain is doing their own workshops, we're having some conversations about doing something in SSB, and @ivan116 is working on a personal agent app in Fair Coop but we don't know yet how much support his proposals will get there. Beyond that, I don't know anybody who is working on #3, and I think the Holochain and SSB devs want to stick to their own frameworks, not intermingle. Which is understandable, they got a lot of work to do to complete their own visions.

I don't know if it is "ripe" yet

And I think it's a good thing, the goal of the event would be to create a dynamic to make us all work together on the same thing.

Which means :
* Create the methods we'll use to work together
* Start working on it and update these methods in consequence.

So the less we have, the better it is, as people will be more keen on appropriating the project at his beginning.

I could be wrong tho, what do you think ?

And we could focalize this event on the 3/ as it's the more innovative and ethical thing I know, I like it very much !

One of the question would be : how can we transform the existant (=loomio, wekan, xwiki, ...) in this new way of building ?
* Creating interconnections ?
* Rebuild new one ?
* Create a plug in/add-on ?

Or this is a question we could ask before the event in the "co-designing" part.

Actually I don't see the event as something ponctual, but more include in a process.

• 1st step : Co-create the event with everyone that wanna make the 3/ which means creating methods to optimise our efficiency during the event and answer questions (like the one you ask for example) we could ask to ourselves on the way we should create this open app ecosystem. This process is long (could be 1 year and a half) and inclusive, one of the objective is to make this event (it could happen in one year and a half), but it's one of the "short objectives" we could plan.
• 2nd step : Based on everything we worked on and the method we created, the event happen. Its goal is in the first time to answer the question "how we can work together ?", when we answered this question we can actually work together.
• 3rd step : Thanks to this event, we continue this dynamic to make this open app ecosystem real.

I tried to be as concise and clear as possible, but it misses a lot of information. What I'm gonna do is a documentation of what I have in my head, and submit it to you all. Like that you'll be easily able to contribute to it if you want :)

Don't know when I'll have the time for that tho'. Hope soon ! See you

This is about #3:
https://staltz.com/a-plan-to-rescue-the-web-from-the-internet.html

I also think #3 is not so related to the other 2.
if an ecosystem comes up creating an OAE structured as the 2# proposal, is highly probable that it will stay in that way. I dont see the 3# as an evolution of the first 2, more like a totally different approach.
By the way, I am totally for the 3# :D

Yeah, but my point was to stay inclusive, and co-create it with the people who already build other way of making apps (if they wanna co-create with us of course).

.> So the less we have, the better it is, as people will be more keen on appropriating the project at his beginning.

I could be wrong tho, what do you think ?

I don't want to be too negative, I could always be wrong, but I would not travel to such a meeting. I think the project has already started by more than one group, and at least some of them know and talk to each other.

I understand.

I'm definitely working on something more like #3 than the other 2. I don't call my models agent-centric per se but I could. They're about relationships: between data items, between items and agents, and between agents. (They're focused on peer-to-peer relationships, but they enable the development of social hierarchies/ levels of organization in clearly-defined contexts.)

When people say "agent-centric", I guess they're trying to restore true relationships between agents and data items, instead of pretending that data can exist in a vacuum. I support that. Certainly I support each agent having the opportunity to create digital identities which they control, and building personal networks (with both private and public components) around those identities.

If my models are deeply agent-centric, they're emphatically community-centric on top of that. They're about identifying and building communities of peers-- potentially even global communities with practically no entry barriers. They're about enabling and facilitating community functions as simply and flexibly as possible, without requiring a wide range of mostly redundant apps to perform basic signal routing, processing and storage actions.

Frankly I'm pretty pessimistic about most efforts to create compatible ecosystems between specific existing apps (and their teams). However, I think that concepts #1 and #2 in this post can be valuable if they're oriented toward creating a truly open and inclusive ecosystem, instead of simply reinforcing mutual benefits between existing development teams.

Greg, a couple of questions and comments:

What does "community" mean to you? A geographical community? Or some kind of organization?

If organization, does the org have agency? Can its members agree together make agreements with other organizations, or to engage in economic interactions (like maybe set up a software hosting environment or a cooperative kitchen or farm)?

If so, it is an agent in the agent-centric model we have in mind.

Re compatible ecosystems between existing apps: DigLife appears to be doing so, and we have an experiment in FairCoop where a bridging app is taking information from two other existing apps (GitLab and NRP) using the ValueFlows vocabulary and using the combined information for income distribution. We'll see how it works, but it seems to be possible.

@bobhaugen , I personally define community in a painstakingly generic way: A community is a network of agents who all share a specific relationship with a specific resource.

That definition can apply to all geographic communities and all organizations.

I also define agent and group agent in painstakingly generic ways. "A group agent is an agent which represents two or more personal agents within an official context." -- I believe that this is entirely compatible with the agent-centric model you have in mind.

@bobhaugen is a ressource an agent ? Is an organization an agent ?

is a ressource an agent ?

In general, no. Gotta have agency.

Also, I don't use the term "human resources" except to point out that humans are not resources unless they are slaves. Humans can provide resources (their work, their ideas, etc.) but they are not resources.

Totally agree, human are not ressources. What about organizations, are they able to be an agent ?

What about organizations, are they able to be an agent ?

Yes, with some complications. They need actual humans to act on their agency. And re @gregorycassel , the humans in the organization need to agree on what the org is doing on their behalf.

But organizations do make agreements with other organizations and engage in economic interactions with other orgs and people, all of which are examples of agency.

And an organization could also not be an agent ? Or it has to be an agent ?

an organization could also not be an agent ?

Yes. All up to the org.

I don't really see the link connecting the concepts of ressources, humans as slaves. Why qualify this ressource specificaly ?
isn't Human ressources a good way to present that they are essencial ressources in the development of any organization, project , event ...?
They are even more a ressource when connected to knowledge, competence or a specific service they might propose.
I'd say , within any type of element (organiization, project, event ...) Anything that enriches , helps develop or serves as a tool can be concidered as ressource ?

It's more like what is the role of humans economically. If they are resources, themselves, they have no agency. Economically, they provide resources (as agents): all of that knowledge, competence, and specific services. Those are all resources. But you need to get the agreement of the human agent about providing them for your purposes.

I don't know if I can make that clear without your trying it in code. I'll try to think of a use case or two where I can find the code to illustrate the difference in a way that would make sense to people.

Maybe this will make it more clear:
https://speakerdeck.com/mikorizal/nrp-round-trip

That was a real use case in Sensorica. People as agents provided the resources money and work. The money bought the resources 3d printer and resins. The work created the design resource and operated the 3d printer.

When the part was sold, the money was distributed back to the people as agents based on the resources they contributed to the production of the part. That's all based on distinguishing the people as agents from the resources they provided.

I could walk people through the code for all that, but it would take a lot longer than looking at the slides.

ok, I understand it in the exchange and production point of view. But when describing a place , a project, an organisation..., how would you call human ressources ?

I don't use the term "human resources" at all. I would say which people are at a place, or working on a project, or are associated with an organization, and what skills do they have (if I want to know that), and maybe what roles do they play.

[edit] ValueFlows can express all of that, although I am not sure how much is formally agreed upon yet. Our NRP software, and REA, can express all of it.