Hey,

My name is Steve Lambert and I am one of the Senior Fellows at the  
OpenLab.

Sorry for the delay in answering these questions.  I'm just going to  
answer this one because I think it kind of answers the others at the  
same time.

> * Can collaboration exist without openness?

Yes.  Bad collaborations can certainly exist without openness.

In my mind, there are a few kinds of collaborations.  I have never  
written this down before so hopefully it makes sense.

Master and Apprentice - this isn't really collaboration, but some  
people call it collaboration to makes themselves feel better.  The  
Master calls it collaboration so that they don't have to feel guilty  
about taking advantage of the apprentice.  The Apprentice calls it a  
collaboration so they don't have face that they're being taking  
advantage of. The pitfall here is pretending it's something it's  
not.  If the rolls are properly defined (actually calling it master  
and apprentice, mentor and mentee, or artist and assistant, etc.) and  
treated appropriately, it can actually be healthy and good.

Collaboration with leadership roles - With this kind there's someone  
who takes the lead at various stages.  The roles may shift and  
another person may lead at another stage.  This changes can happen  
frequently or infrequently.  But someone steps to the front and  
others step back - often because the person in the leader position at  
that stage has some special skill or expertise.  I'm thinking of jazz  
when a soloist will step forward for a few bars, then they step back  
and someone else steps forward.

Totally balanced collaboration - The last is a totally even  
collaboration where all parties have an equal hand in everything at  
every stage.  This may not exist in the real world as much as it  
exists as a goal to strive for.

So getting back to the openness - there has to be openness among the  
collaborators for the collaboration to work. (and a bad collaboration  
could exist where the collaborators don't communicate, which sounds  
awful doesn't it?)  In all of the above models, they collaborators  
need to communicate with each other. They need to formally or  
informally convey to eachother what their doing, why, documenting the  
process so the other can understand, etc.

The thing is, I don't think there has to be openness to the outside  
world.  Collaboration ≠ openness.  There's probably people working  
collaboratively on some weapon at Lockheed Martin or Lawrence  
Livermore right now that is classified and worked on in secret.  The  
spouses of the engineers have no idea what they do at work.  But  
there are probably great collaborations happening behind closed doors  
protected by armed checkpoints.


Another thing I want to mention, which I have said around here  
before, is what we're calling "openness" is not new.  It's ancient.   
The term is new and the concept has had a resurgence in the past  
couple decades, but sharing intellectual property is as old as  
civilization.  Most of the knowledge our culture has was passed on by  
others for free.  If I wanted to make a basket weaved like yours I  
just asked you to show me. You would have no financial, or any other  
reason, not to show me.  Civilization progresses because of the  
proliferation of shared knowledge.

And this is how all knowledge has been passed on since the  
beginning.  From language to skills and ideas.  Until IP became  
commodified.  I see what we're doing as going back to the ways that  
are closer to human nature, before knowledge was perverted by the  
market.

In this way, open source is an innate part of being human.  Treating  
it as foreign or new just helps reinforce the way IP currently  
functions within the market as being normal.

Steve

--
Steve Lambert
http://visitsteve.com
Eyebeam Senior Fellow
http://eyebeam.org




On Jun 2, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Sarah Cook wrote:

> * Can collaboration exist without openness?
> * Is collaboration 'hardcoded' into the lab model, and what are the  
> implications when the lab's philosophy embodies open source-ness or  
> releasing work into the public domain? (as is the case with the  
> Eyebeam R&D OpenLab)
> * Is it necessary or helpful to have a creative commons mentality  
> when engaged in collaborative projects?
> * What can be learned from the model of artist-curator residencies  
> within labs, where participants are expected to collaborate?