Bazaarmodel Chapter 2 [Draft -- version 0.10b]

**Draft Version**

2 The history of the bazaar and cathedral management


"The centralised mindset is deeply entrenched. When people see patterns and structures, they instinctively assume centralised causes or centralised control. They often see leaders and seeds where none exist. When something happens, they assume that one individual agent must be responsible."
-- Mitchel Resnick, Turtles, Termites and Traffic.



2.1 The origins of cathedral thinking

The past two thousand years an organization model has been the norm which is a mode of thought for many persons. This model is hierarchical in nature and the emphasize is on a leader, surrounded by a small inner circle, with vast powers such as in decision making. In this model kings, popes and dictators are the pinnacles. The subjects are serve the organization. Roman Empire under Ceasar became the practical model for many future government structures within Europe. The Roman Empire had based itself upon the state city Sparta via the books of Plato. The aristocrat Plato despised democracy and this only grew when Socrates were put to death in a democratic way [1]. But is was Plotinus who laid the last stone in the fundament of the cathedral model. He contributed in the utopian thinking, ignoring reality.

Plotinus urged his followers to withdraw into themselves. Not looking at the outside world for a rational scientific explanation but to begin their exploration in the depths of their psyche [2]. This ignoring of reality is a trait of utopian thinking and this influenced many human intellectual structures; Plotinus found Christianity a thoroughly objectionable creed, yet he influenced generations of future monotheists in all three of the God-religions [3]. Closedness, to shield one self from reality, from the outside world and maintain a status-quo are defining factors/traits of cathedral thinking.

2.2 Artificial scarcity

There are different instruments that prevent the free flow of knowledge. These are copyright and patents. The copyright law was an instrument for censorship, originally introduced in England under the catholic queen Mary Tudor in 1557. Only books which were approved by the Crown could be copied for public use within the British Empire with it’s overseas colonies [4]. The benevolent way of using copyright today is protecting and giving credit to, someone’s thought or idea on, for example, paper.

Patents are somewhat broader in scope than copyright. Patens original intent is to protect the inventor from financial loss which it incurred by preceding development costs in a new kind of material object like a machine. The inventor would hold a monopoly over the invention and the production of the machine, over a period of time. Only he could produce the machine, or license the patents to others so that they could build it for the markets too. Those countries who were somewhat backward ignored patents laws from the more advanced countries.

It was only in 1790 that the US implemented patent, the first one given to Samuel Hopkins who acquired it on July 30, 1790, after it’s industrial and technology potential matched the British Empire. Most of the advanced technological knowledge was gained via industrial espionage but In those day idea’s weren’t seen as property [5] and couldn’t be protected with patents as it is today (2005).

In the start of the 21st century, Russia and China have very loose copyright and patent laws and are heavily involved in industrial espionage in the more technology advanced countries, thereby trying to bridge the knowledge divide, just like the Japanese did in the 1950-ties and sixties.

Characteristically, countries who do not limit the flow of knowledge show much faster economic growth and scientific progress than those who maintain restrictions upon it. Knowledge is a precious nonmaterial asset which essence can’t be destroyed, it doesn’t wear out and hasn’t got the characterization of material resources. It most important aspects is that is can’t be scarce, but only artificial scarce by restricting its flow. Which hinders the necessity that knowledge needs to be utilized over and over again to prevent from loosing/forgetting it. Knowledge stands apart from today’s matter orientated economic reality based upon scarcity.

When we look at the 20th century there are two periods, 1914-1918 and 1939-1945, where knowledge flows freely, unhindered by patents or copyright. Both periods saw a vast expansion of knowledge in the scientific and engineering fields which lay the groundwork for the postmodern era [6] and they saw vast destructions of human lives, matter and money, but not of knowledge. It didn’t became scarce at all, on the contrary.

2.3 Cathedralmodel

There is always a search for an utopia within a Cathedralmodel. There is a prevalence of suspicion, political rivalry and the illusion that one has control over reality. This illusion is so strong that a standard habit (or trait?) is to view the outside world as a hostile place. An example was the Russian Tsar regime in its waning days. The Tsar himself was far removed, sensed the change in the wind, but was to hesitant to drastically reform his regime. Reforms which would deteriorate his power base. Second example is the Roman Catholic Church, which has a world-image which doesn’t stroke with reality and the campaign against AIDS is severely hampered in some areas because of this illusionary, utopian world view.

This is also true for the parts within the European Union. The Counsel of Europe, The Commission and the European Parliament are disconnected from their surroundings with the people, far removed from the public that they supposedly serve. The change is high, when a European on the street is asked who is the chairman of the European Parliament, their representatives, that they won’t know the answer. Politicians who try to search for a solution for a better, more accessible government in current day management books won’t find it.

An overwhelmingly amount of books about management try to explain how to manage within a Cathedralmodel framework and describes which directives or guideline are the best for a given situation. All these guidelines try to govern a situation or procedure and thereby creates an environment within a company, or other environment, that sustains the illusion that the manager is in control. Examples are given that should work for a broad variety of enterprises, from hamburger chains till the bio industry.

What is striking is that many if not all of the management books are ignoring a very successful example, especially when we look at the democratic level of the organization and what had accomplished [7]. They ignore one of the most successful organization, in this case a government, in the history of mankind. The organization itself characterized itself as a chaotic with overlapping jurisdictions and inconsistent assignments. Actually, it wasn’t an organization at all. There was no master plan of neat division or units, no specific task descriptions [8]. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had erected a framework for the government which inspired the people to work for, filling in the gaps. This made the organization more adaptable against it surroundings. This entity resembles in a way how the Linux Kernel project functions, where Linus Torvalds is the ‘chief’.

2.4 Start of the Bazaarmodel in the modern era

It was under Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) period of government that the United States was transformed into a superpower and at the end of 1945, The US was far ahead, at least twenty five years, of its time compared with other countries. The results of his administration actions were stunning. The gap within the US between the rich and poor was drastically reduced. The middle class doubled its income between 1940 and 1945, the income of the most pore earners increased with 16%, while the top lost 6%. [9]. The development of the Open Source Linux Kernel, where the source code is gratis and available for anyone, is also closing a riff, a technological riff, between the rich and poor countries. The use of Open Source products In third world countries is increasing with a rapid pace. Open Source products produced within bazaar management style like the Linux Project. [10].

To measure this kind of productivity is difficult, if not impossible, with current economic thinking. Therefore economist ignore the Open Source productivity in their economic models because to value the ‘gratis’ source code is arcane. For example: if someone who is ‘unemployed’ and contributes to the Linux Project by creating a modules which will be used by millions of people around the globe, than this won’t show up in the productivity models, and he is still labeled as someone who is unproductive. Even while his modules would cut costs at many companies and institutions world wide by millions of dollars. The result is there but will it be contributed to the developer or to the so called cost-cutting manager?

At the start of 1940, gender discrimination was rife, also in the US. Women weren’t supposed to work. Those who were applying for a job were most of the time turned down. At the start of 1944 women could work everywhere they wanted [11]. Today it is age discrimination which hinders many [12], this concerns the young as the elderly as well. Boundaries is what a Cathedralmodel upholds, Bazaarmodels break them. One doesn’t look at the age, color or other human traits within the Linux development process, what counts is the knowledge and dealings or deeds of the participant. That why Marcello Tosatti, a Brazilian, became in 2002 the head of development of the Linux operating system version 2.4.x. He was only eighteen years old. He managed a operating system used by millions of people around the globe within institutions and companies.

When FDR took office of the administration it was a pure Cathedralmodel in nature, this nature was slowly but steadily neutralized with enormous efforts of FDR and especially Eleanor Roosevelt. She was the eyes and ears of FDR in the field, opened the doors of the White House to the common man where the color of the skin didn’t matter, and exposed many wrongs in the country and within the government which were being obscured by the bureaucrats. She ignored protocol, by passed established routs to the president, so that he was in touch with the people, with the surroundings, even when he was fully engrossed in the war effort.

Today, we can keep in teach on a global scale via internet forums and ‘see’ what is happening I across a vast distance, like within our world. A personal presence at a given situation is still irreplaceable, in the past (look at Eleanor) as well as today, with all our high-tech. Trust in someone knowledge and experience was central in FDR’s policies. He never overturned decisions of people who where more competent than him in certain areas, like that of the military [13]. The trust in other, judging someone by his knowledge and his actions, instead of personal appearance and favouritism, being open to the surrounds, is also central within the Linux Kernel development process.

While the Cathedralmodel grew again after Roosevelt’s administration, like in the creation of the National Security Agency in 1952, the Information Technology Communication experience takes the Bazaarmodel to a whole new level, a global level. It is here to stay.



**NOTES**

Chapter 2

1. Plato was born in 428-7 B.C., in the early years of the Peloponnesian War. “He was a well-to-do aristocrat, related to various people who concerned in the rule of the Thirty Tyrants. He was a young man when Athens was defeated, and he could attribute the defeat to democracy, which his social position and his family connections were likely to make him despise. He was a pupil of Socrates, for whom he had a profound affection and respect; and Socrates was put to death by the democracy. It is not, therefore, surprising that he should turn to Sparta for an adumbration of his ideal commonwealth. Plato possessed the art to dress up illiberal suggestions in such a way they deceived future ages, which admired the Republic without ever becoming aware of what was involved in its proposals.
B. Russel, The History of Western Philosophy, 1945, p.105.

2. Drawing on Plato’s ideas, Plotinus evolved a system designed to achieve an understanding of the self. Again, he was not at all interested in finding a scientific explanation of the universe or attempting to explain the physical origins of life, instead of looking outside the world for an objective explanation, Plotinus urged his disciples to withdraw into themselves and begin their exploration in the depths of the psyche.
K. Armstrong, A history of God, 1994, p. 101.

3. Like Celsus, Plotinus (205-270) found Christianity a thoroughly objectionable creed, yet he influenced generations of future monotheists in all three of the God-religions.
K. Armstrong, A history of God, 1994, p. 101.

4. S. Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights Copywrongs, [www.msnbc.com], 2001. MSNBC remove the article within e few days from their website. See appendix 5 Copyrights copywrongs voor the complete article.

5. See Chapter 2 note 4.

6. The era I refer is the the period of 1950 up to 2005. The US absorbed vast amounts of knowledge from former Nazi Germany. As a result from this, improved personal profile research was incorporated for shifting out candidates, advanced propulsion, like the rocket and new weapon technology, were introduced. The National Security Agency is also a ‘fruit’ from Nazi knowledge.

7. …industrial production had gone up 100 percent, corporate profits doubled, and the GNP jumped from $100 billion to $215 billion. In 1940, only 7.8 million Americans out of 132 million made enough money to pay taxes; in 1945 that figure had risen to nearly 50 million in a population of 140 million.
The society of a few haves and a multitude of have-nots had been transformed. Because of the greatest -indeed, the only- redistribution of income downward the nation’s history, a middle-class country had emerged. Half of the American people -those at the lover end of the compensation scale- had doubled their income, while those in the top 20 percent had risen by little more than 50 percent. Those in the bottom half of earners had seen their share of the country’s income increase by 16 percent, while those at the top had lost 6 percent. As a result, social historian Geoffrey Perret observed, “barriers to social and economic equality which had stood for decades were either much reduced or entirely overthrown.”
D. K. Goodwin, No ordinary time, 1995, p. 625.

8. It was fashionable during the war to decry the chaos and confusion in Washington, the mushrooming bureaucracies with overlapping jurisdictions and inconsistent mandates. Yet it seems, with the luxury of hindsight, that no other form of organization could have produced the triumphs and transformations of Roosevelt’s America. Indeed, it was not an organization at al. There was no master plan, no neat division of responsibilities, no precise allocation of burdens. The conduct of the nation during the war mirrored the temperament, the strengths and the frailties of a single man. A lesser man, a man of smaller ego, would have sought greater control, more rigid lines of responsibility and authority. But Roosevelt never felt that he or his leadership was threatened by multiplicity and confusion. He could try everything; he could move in different directions at the same time…
D. K. Goodwin, No ordinary time, 1995, p. 607.

9. See Chapter 2 note 7.

10. Peru and Open Source: [www.theregister.co.uk], Other parts of the world: [www.linuxjournal.com].

11. D. K. Goodwin, No ordinary time, 1995, p. 622. After the war, many social achievements, like gender equality rights and legislation against racism, were reversed under loud protest from the female part of the population.

12. [www.caade.net]

13. Never once, Stimson admiringly remarked, did Roosevelt overturn his commanders’ decisions for personal or political motives.
D. K. Goodwin, No ordinary time, 1995, p. 609.



Post Edited (07-20-05 11:34)