Excellent example. Facilitating the development of papers like this is exactly what we would like to do.

jbash wrote:

I don't see why Foresight should undertake the administrative burden of running general-purpose Web servers…. All you need is a mission statement and a mailing list. There's no need to overstructure things…

Chris Phoenix wrote:

I know I'd write more if I knew that a structure existed for expanding, reviewing, and publishing my work…. As to Foresight's web space, the main point of that is to add legitimacy to the papers, and make them easier to find–surely a valuable service to any author!

So how about this for structure: Nanodot maintains a list of papers in progress in the form of a Slashbox (one of those little boxes down the right side of the main page). Each paper in this list is a link to a mailing list hosted on eGroups. Anyone can start her own group there for free. A group consists of a mailing list with online archives, a home page, a links page, etc. You can even put files on it. In other words, it's got everything you would likely need to organize a small group of people around the development of a whitepaper.

Cost of implementation: however long it takes Dave Krieger to set up a Slashbox. Probably a few minutes.

–Root

You make some good points; you also misunderstood my intent in a couple of places. Here's what I see as the current situation: Foresight has produced several Senior Associate Gatherings, at which many people gather to listen and sometimes to brainstorm. This has been quite successful at generating useful questions; it's a good way to convert brainpower into broad ideas. However, Foresight is not (yet) doing as much as it could to help convert brainpower into, say, white papers.

You said that thoughtful review is difficult to achive; I completely agree. That's why I talked about reviewers with appropriate skills. You also implied that weekend bull sessions are unlikely to produce papers. Again, I agree; hence my comment about "large and random groups." I am not concerned with keeping people away from projects or with signal-to-noise ratio; I am concerned with making it easier to form useful working groups.

If I want to write a paper today, I'm basically on my own. I must either do it myself, or find my own collaborators. Then I have to find my own reviewers, and then I have to find a place to publish it. (Also, I'd personally like to review papers, but I don't have an effective way to find papers that need reviewers.) It is difficult to create groups to work on papers; a large part of this difficulty is knowing who to talk to. I'm thinking that a central clearinghouse and infrastructure would be a good idea. Not to control anything! Just to make it easier for me to find the people who can help me, or the people I can help.

You raise interesting points about primary authorship and limited publication. I think that here, we'll have to agree to disagree. Successful Open Source projects generally have one, or a few, leaders. Without a leader, the project is probably doomed. Perhaps I should have said "primary author(s)", but that's as far as I'll go. As to the limits on publication, there are many valid reasons why an author might not want their preliminary work to be published. This concern is not limited to academia (though it would be stupid to build something that academics would be unwilling to participate in). Authors should be able to use this service without seeing their work snatched away and published before they're ready.

I don't know why you say the resources don't exist. With the amount of brainpower and knowledge we have in the Foresight community, not to mention several top-notch universities nearby, we have more than enough resources to produce a few papers. Why aren't more papers being written? I think it's because it is hard to take a good idea all the way to publication on your own. There may be other reasons; please make constructive suggestions. I know I'd write more if I knew that a structure existed for expanding, reviewing, and publishing my work.

Certainly existing groupware projects should be maintained. And certainly a list of projects and potential projects would be useful; we suggested something similar. As to Foresight's web space, the main point of that is to add legitimacy to the papers, and make them easier to find–surely a valuable service to any author!

We already have two projects underway that will probably spawn working groups soon. But keep in mind that it's a lot easier to form a group if you know who to ask. This is why I think the survey is crucial. Assuming we get useful responses (which we won't know until we try), maintaining a list of people is not difficult, and the list could be a big help to some would-be authors.

Chris

I agree with the general thrust of this, but I'm a bit concerned with the attitude that seems to underlie a few of the phrases in the description.

There seems to be an idea that the problem in creating documents (or whatever) will be too much participation. It talks about avoiding "large and random groups", and about finding reviewers with "appropriate skills" (as if anybody could always see what "appropriate skills" would be).

I submit that the problem isn't going to be keeping groups small. The problem is going to be getting any groups at all. It's easy to get people to sit in a weekend bull session on a topic. It's hard to get people to write anything significant, or to review it thoughtfully. Lots of people submit documents to Nanodot, or hand them out at gatherings, or whatever. I don't think there've been any cases of anybody being overwhelmed with comments or assistance. Sure, you get the odd bozo comment, but you don't get very many comments of any kind.

All of the standards that define the Internet have been written in open mailing lists. Despite very widespread interest in some of those projects, the signal-to-noise ration on those lists has been pretty tolerable. Once you start doing actual work, noise tends to drop off on its own.

Another thing that worries me is the comment that "Of course work still in 'beta' state should not be widely published without consent of the primary author.". This sort of viewpoint seems to be the academic equivalent of the commercial obsession with intellectual property, and I think it's equally dangerous. It also reflects the rather conceited view that there really is a "primary author" for everything. Open development is open development. It's polite to give people credit for things, but let's not get hidebound…

… and it sounds to me like there's a lot of concern about focusing resources that don't exist in the first place. I'd be shocked if any of this got big enough to need a lot of structure for quite a while.

I think the best thing Foresight could do to support this sort of work would be to continue with its existing groupware projects. It could also usefully maintain a list of projects underway or under consideration (like the more-or-less dead list on the old Senior Associates' web page, but easier to update and better publicized). Maintaining lists of people sounds a lot more complicated, and probably a lot less effective, than maintaining lists of projects.

Web space is essentially a free good, and I don't see why Foresight should undertake the administrative burden of running general-purpose Web servers.

In the meantime, why not start a couple of working groups and see where they go? All you need is a mission statement and a mailing list. There's no need to overstructure things, or to discuss them into the ground.

This is the kind of thing I was hoping for with the draft paper I posted earlier on "Open Sourcing Nanotechnology." Any comments on that paper between now and mid-October would be welcomed in revising the paper for the November MNT conference.

I got into the issue of open sourcing out of a concern about ways to make the benefits of nanotechnology available. The next paper I plan to write will be on "Accessing Abundance" looking at access to technology and social implications of material abundance, again focusing on near to medium term policy choices.

I've had some e-mail discussion with Bill Spence (NanoTechnology Magazine) who is suggesting a "Global Quality" initiative to promote spreading the benefits of nanotechnology. I would be interested in corresponding here or via e-mail with others who might want to collaborate in looking at how to promote safe and equitable access to MNT as the technology develops.