Posted by TimJ on Mon Nov 9 17:18:07 1998
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: small is beautiful posted by TimP on November 09, 1998 at 16:37:16:
| Distribution: | paneris@i-way.co.uk |
|---|
>>>>It leads me to think that we must plan to bud.
>>>>At 18 (or similar magic number) Paneris-the-site should
>>>>perhaps be cloned.>>>surely you jest. I would like to see paneris as a thriving
>>>hive of 100's if not 1000's of participants. Is this not
>>>the dream?>>My thoughts are much the same. What advantages would there
>>be?>Paneris would be more like Taiwan, the SAS, Anderson Consulting, the IRA,
>and anyone else who has ever successfully built a stable community.:) In my book, none of these examples are stable. I bet none of them are arround in 1000 years. I can't work out if you are taking the piss. How about the odd smiley?
I am also not convinced by the need for stability, I am more persuaded by a dynamic and chaotic tension, with the system continuously shifting it's ballance to adjust to the changing world. This is the realy metaphor of certainly the IRA and Taiwan, I know less about the SAS and Anderson Consulting. Anyway, consider termites...
>>Paneris is not a business, therefor more resilliant to the
>>>pressures that bring conventional businesses to the brink.
>>>Individual companies withing paneris will inevitably go
>>>under, but the community will live for ever!!!>>Quite.
>I think that the metaphor needs some tweaking:
>if we are talking about the long term evolution of paneris then
>we need to be using biological metaphors.
>I am thinking in terms of cell division, or the division of
>packs in African Wild Dogs, Lions etc, or indeed the asexual propagation
>of plants.I like the termite metaphor: millions building something greater than the sum of the parts. plenty of shagging going on.
>The point is that groups implode above a certain size.
>The IRA (and the Illuminati :) use 5 as their magic number,
>other groups get up to 25,termite populations are massive.
>but beyond that you have to introduce
>heirarchical concepts and role groupings to characterise the orgainisation.the nub of the argument. heirarchical concepts and role groupings only exist to facilitate accurate communication of information. we do not have this problem, and i would argue therefor that we are infinitely scalable.
>If we 'just grow' we are taking the oak tree paradigm,
>which just gets bigger.termites
>If we design propagation in from the start then we have a chance
>that the Paneris species will survive forever.there are some termite hills that are millions of years old, the species evolves, the home gets bigger, but they don't move house.
>I don't know how to put it more clearly....
>Only things which replicate last...
>PanerisII is a budding....
>PanerisI will not die it will be joined in the ecosystem of
>our attention by PanerisIIconsider it the rock on which we build our castle.
>Chameleon, and I imagine most of our other customers,
>do not want to 'join paneris', but they would like our technology,
>and some/most of our way of working. Similarly with Catalyst.we have layed out the 4 levels of membership and commitment. Chameleon and Catalyst are (i assume) Partners of Paneris.
>What I am asking is, given the need for budding, how are we to
>implement it and (William) what can CVS do to help us?I am still not convinced that paneris is not infinitely scalable. After all, there is only one God.
TimJ