Group items tagged

Concerning socio-technical networks, Canadian Socioeconomist Benoît Lévesque: "Le potentiel d'innovation et de transformation de l'économie sociale : quelques éléments de problématique", CRISES, Avril 2006 Quote: "En somme, les innovations résulteraient de processus sociaux, soit d'interactions et d'échanges d'informations entre personnes, scientifiques, entrepreneurs, financiers, hommes politiques, usagers, clients formant ainsi des réseaux sociotechniques." "L'innovation pourrait donc être comprise en termes de processus inscrits dans des systèmes sociaux d'innovation. Outre le fait qu'elles mettent bien en lumière le caractère social et collectif de toute innovation, les notions de système et de processus peuvent être très utiles pour établir des passerelles entre les innovations et les transformations sociales (Boyer, 1991)." Quote

Jean Paul Sartre quoting French philosopher Jules Lequier "developing, and by developing, developing itself, and being only what we actually do"

Concerning DIWO Lab, André Gorz is a very very relevant european philosopher: André Gorz, La sortie du capitalisme a déjà commencé Écologica, Galilée, 2008

French philosopher Jacques Ellul, wrote one of the most reknown critique of Technology, The Technological Society, New York, Knopf, 1964 He explains that society lost control of Technology which is being completly autonomous. With DIWO-Lab, by making ourselves and rummaging into the design of things, we'll collectively master the Technology. From article "Jacques Ellul" Wikipedia (en): It is useless, he argues, to think that a distinction can be made between technique and its use, for techniques have specific social and psychological consequences independent of human desires. There can be no room for moral considerations in their use: "Not even the moral conversion of the technicians could make a difference. At best, they would cease to be good technicians. In the end, technique has only one principle, efficient ordering."

A selection of stats in English : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogaz ... and in French and German too look at the page, the guy made a kind of micro SoA and posted it in his blog. You also have a link to a tool in German to calculate the production of a biogas digester

Quote page 109 of this PDF It is now clear that users often innovate, and that they often freely reveal their innovations. But what about informal cooperation among users? What about organized cooperation in development of innovations and other matters? The answer is that both flourish among user-innovators. Informal user-to-user cooperation, such as assisting others to innovate, is common. Organized cooperation in which users interact within communi- ties, is also common. Innovation communities are often stocked with use- ful tools and infrastructure that increase the speed and effectiveness with which users can develop and test and diffuse their innovations.

With DIWO-Lab, people are both consumers and producers. It changes everything. Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Bantam Books, 1980

A book about how web culture and wikinomics will produce behavioural changes on industrial development Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, Atlantic Books, 2008

Vinck Dominique. Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique. Contribution à la prise en compte des objets dans les dynamiques sociales. In: Revue française de sociologie. 1999, 40-2. pp. 385-414. This paper explains the importance of "intermediate tools" as mediator of social relations, how it embeder the links among parties. Really useful to justify our consortium and a DIWO Lab environment.

iceScrum is the free platform for your agile developments

"Collaborative governance is a process and a form of governance in which participants (parties, agencies, stakeholders) representing different interests are collectively empowered to make a policy decision or make recommendations to a final decision-maker who will not substantially change consensus recommendations from the group.[citation needed] Governance can employ different degrees of public consultation and participation,[1] ranging from non-participation (the community is unaware of any decisions taken), informing (telling the community what is planned and to understand problems, alternatives and solutions), consultation (to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions), collaboration (to partner with the public to develop alternatives, identify preferred solutions, and make decisions), to empowerment (placing final decision-making into the hands of the public). Collaborative governance is governance with characteristics of both collaboration and empowerment.[citation needed] Some models of collaborative governance have been criticized as allowing ad hoc deliberation to drown out minority opposition.[2] "

"Nonviolent Communication (NVC) (also called Compassionate Communication or Collaborative Communication[1][2]) is a communication process developed by Marshall Rosenberg beginning in the 1960s.[3] NVC often functions as a conflict resolution process. It focuses on three aspects of communication: self-empathy (defined as a deep and compassionate awareness of one's own inner experience), empathy (defined as listening to another with deep compassion), and honest self-expression (defined as expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others). NVC is based on the idea that all human beings have the capacity for compassion and only resort to violence or behavior that harms others when they don't recognize more effective strategies for meeting needs"

"Open-source governance is a political philosophy which advocates the application of the philosophies of the open source and open content movements to democratic principles in order to enable any interested citizen to add to the creation of policy, as with a wiki document. Legislation is democratically opened to the general citizenry, employing their collective wisdom to benefit to the decision-making process and improve democracy.[1]"

"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent, not necessarily the agreement of participants and the resolution of objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together."

"Consensus democracy is the application of consensus decision-making to the process of legislation in a democracy. It is characterised by a decision-making structure which involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities.[1]"

"The assessment of gross national happiness (GNH; Wylie: rgyal-yongs dga'a-skyid dpal-'dzoms) was designed in an attempt to define an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than only the economic indicator of gross domestic product (GDP)."

"E-democracy is a combination of the words electronic and democracy. In an evolving political and technological landscape here on Earth, many are fighting over the definition of this term. But a logical definition adheres to the word itself: a democracy that has "electronic" characteristics. E-democracy does not equal e-government, but is a form of it. It does not equal "wikigovernment" but is a form of it. Of course, defining "e-democracy" can be just as difficult as defining democracy when you get down to brass tacks. But because the Internet connects millions of people and can be a tool for governance, e-democracy has the potential to become one of the first forms of large-scale direct democracy on Earth. Canada and Sweden are now both trying to enact forms of this system of government, by working within the traditional political process to elect e-democracy friendly politicians, with the ultimate goal of overhauling the entire system of their nations' governments. Sweden's party Aktiv Demokrati aims to build a genuine direct democracy; Canada's Online Party has taken a milder approach with citizens in a more advisory capacity."

"Sociocracy is a system of governance, using consent-based decision making among equivalent individuals and an organizational structure based on cybernetic principles.[1] The most recent implementation of sociocracy by Gerard Endenburg,[2] also known as Circular Organizing, was developed as a new tool for governance of private enterprise, but has been adopted in many different kinds of organizations including public, private, non-profit and community organizations as well as professional associations."

"Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations. The "most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests."[2] Supporters of meritocracies do not necessarily agree on the nature of "merit", however they tend to agree that "merit" itself should be a primary consideration during evaluation. In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of government based on achievement. Like "utilitarian" and "pragmatic", the word "meritocratic" has also developed a broader definition, and can be used to refer to any government run by "a ruling or influential class of educated or able people.""