[FM Discuss] federated publishing

[adam hyde]

hey :)

On 17/10/11 06:04, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> I'm only reading this thread now, and I guess the book fair is over,
> but I'm still offering a couple comments as I think the message is
> great and hopefully can be given again.
>
>
> "not a model, but is better considered a network of models,"
>
> I don't know what this means, seems superfluous.
>

it means that this "federated publishing space" can support many types 
of production models. a publishing model based on an idea of federated 
data could look exactly like a publishers established practice - one 
author working by themselves with feedback from editors etc. or it could 
look like something different. we have this circumstance now in fm 
(fr/en/fr) and booki.cc - content is migrating across the platforms but 
when it gets there the workflow/production process is quite different 
for each book - some books are worked on by one person some by many, 
some are a strong collaborative effort, others look like a "lesser" 
collaborative effort

> "or minutes"
>
> That triggers disbelief unless explained.
>

mick does this with making workshop manuals. he remixes content in 
minutes to make workshop manuals. this could easily be a much more 
diverse practice. the point is just that when there is a good corpus 
then remixing like this gets richer

> "Federated Social Network theory, which itself is born out of a need
> to transform proprietary network services into a modern Free Software
> critique"
>
> I've never heard theory appended to FSN, though there ought be some.
> The transformation of services into critique sounds like something
> other than what people working on federated social networks/web are
> doing.
>

yeah i agree. i think federated social networks are trying to grasp at 
something that is not yet fully articulated or understood by many than 
those working close up to the code...i think its a theory that needs to 
be written.

the sentence you outlined needs work, i am trying to articulate that the 
free software approach as we have known it is struggling to deal with 
closed platform services hence the need for federated services and the 
agpl..its this struggle that highlights the same problem in other 
sectors such as publishing...any suggestions on how to clean up that 
statement is welcome :)

adam






> Mike
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:03, adam<adam at flossmanuals.net>  wrote:
>> cool ta...i changed 'provisions' in :
>> "In fact proprietary behaviour also pervades content that is purportedly
>> offered for free, but comes encumbered with provisions that restrict its use
>> and evolution."
>>
>> to
>>
>> "provisions and practices"
>>
>> adam
>>
>> On 10/10/2011 04:26 PM, Andy Oram wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand some passages I didn't understand before. Here is
>>> another version with some polishing, and maybe one new idea.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
>>> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Adam Hyde
>> Founder, FLOSS Manuals
>> Project Manager, Booki
>> Book Sprint Facilitator
>> mobile :+ 49 177 4935122
>> identi.ca : @eset
>> booki.flossmanuals.net : @adam
>>
>> http://www.flossmanuals.net
>> http://www.booki.cc
>> http://www.booksprints.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
>> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net