Author: JP

Cory Doctorow pointed me (thanks, Cory) at this recent article from the FT: A closed mind about an open world. In it, James Boyle makes some very interesting points, I can only recommend you read it.

Here’s a sample quote from the article:

Studying intellectual property and the internet has convinced me that we have another cognitive bias. Call it the openness aversion. We are likely to undervalue the importance, viability and productive power of open systems, open networks and non-proprietary production.

Understanding why “we” undervalue these things is critical to the three big I-battles we face: Intellectual Property, Identity and the Internet.

It is not enough for those that “get it” to go into a mutual-admiration huddle and back-slapping frenzies, as we are often wont to do. Those that don’t get it don’t get it for a reason. The commonest reason is an inability to comprehend three apparently simple things: that people can be altruistic; that extreme nonrival goods can and do exist; that people can make money because-of-rather-than-with.

James makes some excellent points in helping us bridge that gap of understanding.

But he also makes one very worrying one, something that has bothered me for quite a while. While we fight for openness in systems, networks, markets and information, the environment we fight in is becoming more closed. Many of the disruptions we’ve seen over the last two decades would not be allowed to happen today. And this is something we need to guard against, particularly in the context of regulation. Things like DOPA and Net Neutrality and Brand X and Mickey Mouse and DCMA. We live in challenging times.
But you know/the darkest hour/is always/always/just before the dawn. It may be a Long Time Coming, but it’s coming.

Great phrase from Miss Rogue. A post that deserves analysis and comment, but the phrase is worth a post all by itself. Thanks, Tara!

Maybe it got clogged up. Help is at hand, just follow this link.

I’ve been reading Cass Sunstein‘s recent book Infotopia very slowly. For three reasons. Because it’s very good and I want to savour it. Because it needs time to digest well. And because I’m on vacation.

As part of the conversation on opensource software, Cass quotes Woody Guthrie‘s copyright notice, as published in a 1930s songbook:

This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.

Wonderful quote. Thank you, Cass. I will comment on the book once I have had the chance to mull over it.

Phil Dawes made sure I didn’t miss this recent piece by Joel Spolsky. BTW, anyone interested in the semantic web should tune in to Phil’s stuff. [Thanks, Phil!]

In classic management speak I guess you could categorise Joel’s three methods as (a) stick (b) carrot and stick and (c) carrot. But that’s oversimplification.

Personally, I think my management methods were influenced more by Max De Pree than anyone else, though Peter Drucker looms large in the background, aided and abetted by Tom Peters. If you haven’t read De Pree’s books, please do.

I first read Leadership is an Art sometime in 1988, about a year after it was published. And it set the tone for my management style ever since; over the years, that learning was augmented by my understanding leadership in the voluntary sector and “quiet” approaches, and I found all this very valuable. I’ve probably given away fifty copies of the book.
The elevator pitch for Leadership is an Art was:

• The first job of a leader is to articulate strategy and vision.
• The second and last is to say thank you.
• In between, a leader should be a servant and a debtor to the led.

I found it very powerful for many reasons, just one of which I feel I must share here. De Pree was CEO of Herman Miller, who make the chairs you are likely to be sitting on right now. A venerable man running a venerable manufacturing concern, showing immense humility and humanity in his management style.

Here’s an excerpt from a Publisher’s Weekly review:

The artful leader, he argues, should recognize human diversity and make full use of his or her employees’ gifts. Further, he believes, a leader is responsible not just for the health of a company’s financial assets, but for its ethics. Advocating management through persuasion, and the exercise of democratic participation rather than concentrated power, he favors covenantal relationships with employees that rest on shared purpose, dignity and choice.

What I found particularly exciting at the time was that De Pree, CEO of a major manufacturing firm, somehow managed to avoid thinking Taylor-meets-Assembly-Line-Any-Colour-You-Like-As-Long-As-It’s-Black. That he understood the value and richness of human diversity, and did not set about seeking to destroy it systematically.

Now, back to Joel’s point. I think there is something subtle, something very important, in his Identity Management approach to managing technology teams.

Participation.

People want to make a difference. Young people want to make that difference quickly and energetically. Older people want to leave a legacy as they ride into the sunset.

They want to make a difference.

When you allow people to participate and make it simple for them to do so, you release their creativity and satisfy their urge to make a difference. In some respects, that’s what opensource is about. And what the critics of altruism fail to grasp.

And this is also what Web 2.0 and the Read-Write Web and The Writable Web and social software are about.

Participation.

Some time ago, speaking at a conference, I wondered aloud why anyone would fight to hire intelligent people and then proceed to prescribe precisely what they should do. I still wonder about that.