Hello everyone,
It's a nice idea to take back where we started with Open Source as a way
to present ourselves.

I am an Italian designer (product design, web design, service design and 
now also  a sort of interior designer ;) )...since 3 years I have been
interested in Open Source and I experimented with some open source
software to test how much a designer could use it (and I use only open 
source software for my personal projects now). And then I have become 
interested in Open Source not only as a tool but also as a strategic 
opportunity, and it all started with my master degree thesis.

I started my graduation thesis on March 2005, and finished it in April
2006. At the time there were some initiatives in the design academic 
field aimed to study how design could improve localities through 
(sustainable) development. I became interested in this theme, and 
started a thesis  asking myself: how design could improve a locality? 
The first answer was: only the local community can improve a locality in 
the best way.  And this triggered two more questions: how a community 
can organize and  collaborate in order to improve its conditions? And 
how can design relate to a community?

At the time people were recognizing how open source was successful as a
community-based organization form, and how it was so successful that it
was adopted in other fields outside software programming. There were
just two examples (and the best ones, so far) of Open Design: Thinkcycle
and Hillary Cottam's and Charles Leadbeater's work at the Red Unit in
the Design Council. And from there I started.

It was very difficult, at the time, to develop such a thesis. I had to
recollect all the cases that could show an open-source-like organization
(now you can just read the Wikinomics book), and then understand what
really open source / free software / peer-to-peer is. And at the time,
the whole Web 2.0 debate was just starting, so it remained outside my
thesis. It was difficult to find informations about open source outside
software and also to understand how it works...it was too early! Some
professors at the University thought it could be something illegal as it
was related to peer-to-peer! :D And other designers thought it was
impossible to design something based on a community (except web
designers and urban planners, designers have never related to communities).

Well, I think that now it could be easier to study Open Design: a lot of 
people now know Linux and open source, and the Web 2.0 phenomenon 
spreaded the idea that a  business can be based upon a community and the 
sharing. Open design is a  concept that can be accepted more easily now, 
but of course it is still difficult to understand how to design with/for 
communities (and not companies) in a gift economy or gift/market economy.

It was difficult to develop such a thesis and it took one year. And the
results...they are so complex! I ended with a theoretical thesis,
because I was not satisfied with the approaches to communities I could
find (e.g. Communities of Practice), so I developed my own methodology
to design with/for Open Source / Peer-to-Peer Communities (communities 
that develop and activity based on an open source philosphy and 
peer-to-peer interactions) starting from some earlier studies on Service 
Design.

The main idea is: we could "design" an Open Peer-to-Peer Community if we
design with the community an activity (as a service) based on Open
Source and Peer-to-Peer dynamics. And we could do it adopting Open
Source and Peer-to-Peer dynamics INSIDE the design process.
So we could design with/for a community which has Open Source and
Peer-to-Peer dynamics through a design process with Open Source and
Peer-to-Peer dynamics.
This is why I refer to it as "Open Peer-to-Peer Design".

I tried to resume my thesis in my blog with different posts (in English,
Italian and Spanish), and I'm trying to publish it online very soon, I 
hope before June. For the moment, you can read here:
http://www.openp2pdesign.org/blog/archives/112
This is the last post, there you can find the links to the previous ones.

And now I'm still studying these themes! :-)

Massimo Menichinelli
openp2pdesign.org


Janet Hawtin ha scritto:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Sal Randolph <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  Hello all,
>>
>> What an intriguing group we have for this discussion!
>>
>> I come at open source from a slightly different perspective.   I'm an artist
>> exploring the territory of 'gift' and 'free' because of the complex mix of
>> ideas, feelings, politics, and situations I find there.  Although I do of
>> course use open source software, I mostly look at the free and open source
>> software movements as both inspiration and a laboratory.  I've found as a
>> practical matter that gifts anchor and catalyze participation  - if you want
>> to make something happen, it's much easier to start with a gift than a
>> request.
> 
> For instance, are you more excited
>> to use a tool that's free? Or more wary? Does it feel like a gift? Does it
>> create an obligation?
> 
> imho
> Free software is great because it is something which empowers the
> whole community.
> So working with open tools could be seen as a gift to me, but it is
> also offering an opportunity to others, and coders might see the
> opportunity to work on the project as a win too. You choose what level
> of engagement you want.
> I have participated in some communities but I also just use some tools.
> 
> The choice is often a mix of
> * time,
> * communities I feel at home with, and
> * a specific tool which I would like to see develop.
> These kinds of interests in making something better are often similar
> motivations to other folks developing so its not really a matter of
> gifting in the binary sense but more a level of participation for the
> folks involved.
> Using the application is still seen as participation. Making openly
> helps to build on the ecology around the project.
> 
> I guess I see it as being at a point in time where we are moving from
> the broadcaster and recipient to
> a model where there is more work being done on a peer2peer basis.
> This is interesting for art because it has often been thought of as a
> niche broadcast kind of project?
> 
> Janet
>