My inability to stay on topic is really troubling me these days...I just can't figure it out. In any case here's my possibly related comments to Kayiwa and Linda's observations about the imbalance caused when either partner area proceeds from the exclusive premise of "How can the WWC help me?"

Self interest is an enormously important concept; we couldn't survive without it. Calculating self interest is different proceeding from two beginning places. First we might proceed from a premise of scarcity; or second we might proceed from a premise of abundance. Lots of threads here at Ned have examined these different premises, so I think people are familiar with the outlines of the different premises.

In the WWC threads we've also talked about the contours of poverty. And it seems we think it rather obvious that poverty is scarcity. But despite this agreement poverty seems harder to pin down. One good point that's come up is how narrowly poverty gets defined if we think only in terms of money.

I'm not trying to put words into Linda's mouth but to express an observation about what she has said in regards to poverty. So it seems to me she's saying about people in the west that we are so rich we are blind to wats we are really poor. For example we are so busy burning fuel to get to work we fail to see the cost to the natural environment. It's like the line from the song: "Paved paradise and put up a parking lot." Viewing poverty exclusively as a lack of money blinds both sides of the partnership areas to areas where we truly and meaningfully share poverty.

Another way to think about poverty from the perspective of scarcity is to think in terms of "power." I'm uncomfortable with the word "power" as applied to social relationships because it draws on a physical metaphor and the metaphorical basis is largely unexplored. Nevertheless power is the way we are used to talking so I'll fall into line to draw attention to the relationship of power in the partner areas. Who's got the power? On one hand people in poor partnership areas might think--with good reason--that the people in the rich areas have the power, so let's get some. On the other hand people in the rich areas thinking they've got more power might share it but only if sharing doesn't upset the fundamental relationship where the rich have more power.

I've put out big themes: money and power from a perspective of scarcity. I'm not saying that the views from the perspective of scarcity are wrong. Indeed, people on both sides of partnership areas are quite accustomed to looking at things from this perspective. The question is whether there is another perspective to view from and I suggest that there is a perspective view from abundance rather than scarcity.

A pot-luck supper party is one analogy for abundance. Everyone brings some food to share and everyone has a seat at the table. The trouble with that analogy is talking about food immediately brings to light the problem of real scarcity. Many poor people simply don't have enough to eat! That's one reason that I keep coming back to an analogy of the Internet in regards to this project.

Commons-based peer production is a term coined by Yochai Benler. I like the definition on that Wikipedia article by Aaron Krowne:

[Commons-based peer production]refers to any coordinated, (chiefly) internet-based effort whereby volunteers contribute project components, and there exists some process to combine them to produce a unified intellectual work. CBPP covers many different types of intellectual output, from software to libraries of quantitative data to human-readable documents (manuals, books, encyclopedias, reviews, blogs, periodicals, and more).

Peer to peer or P2P are related ways of expressing peer production. I particularly like the term read/write Web (a good Web site ReadWriteWeb).

I think that the WWC as imagined want to build partnerships premised on a perspective of abundance rather than scarcity. I don't think people in either part of the partner area divide are accustomed to thinking from this perspective. So at the root the WWC is an experiment in inventing new ways of seeing and collaborating.

Metaphor, analogy, I always get confused. Here's an example of how confusing it gets for me. I think that the WWC is trying to proceed from a perspective of abundance rather than scarcity. In my mind's eye I see commons-based peer production as an example of something proceeding from this premise. But then there's a leap, isn't there, to concluding that the WWC is an Internet-based enterprise. I know there's a leap that's probably not warranted; and there's pitfalls there, not the least of which is sparse Internet access in the poor partner areas. Nevertheless I make the leap

Using the read/write analogy, I think it very important to focus attention on the write part when considering the poorer partner areas. It's important to consider ways that people can create and share content within their own community and with their partner area. My friend Phil Jones has coined the term peerosphere to name the places that people are creating to share P2P. My vision of the WWC is a part of the peerosphere.

Google has a great way to celebrate their existence 10 to the 100. The deadline for submissions is October 20, 2008. I plan to submit an idea. I think there's something to my idea, but I hardly imagine it will be selected. I hate writing proposals! Still there's something really wonderfully spare about Google's application form. The questions to answer provide focus.

Not trying to add more work to the pile. But I would participate in a collaborative effort to submit the WWC to the Google project. I think the process might help us all to be better able to talk about the WWC to others.

With all my rambling I want to say that I think attention to developing ways for the partner areas to write, that is to create content to share, is essential to the development of this project.