Merken

Our decentralized future

Zitierlink des Filmsegments
Embed Code

Automatisierte Medienanalyse

Beta
Erkannte Entitäten
Sprachtranskript
and so good morning and again and very glad to have to introduce the dimensions he has been is a long-term community of activist them on many fronts in for against software patents it at some like an organizational level and apparently as you know we also succeeded and is also the main 1 of the main guys behind and queue both developing wise and design was is written books culture empire probably likes to show it and some is also thinking about apart from developing some like the interest questions about the infamous Article questions about systems how to organize them also on the societal level but also on the technical level and consulting companies on distributed systems and so on the and would be
doing here is that the just going to give some give some input and there's going to be a bit of a different form of them the key nodes we saw in the last days in you are invited very soon to walk up to the microphone and to and discussion so because of course a lot of prepared thoughts but is very happy to actually and some kind of
more interactive some discussion and please view when you do that and try to restrain yourself to something like 30 seconds think of it like a preacher or something like that maybe also at 60 seconds sometimes you want to present something more but please don't do all that but then P just going to um repeat what he understood from you know 10 otherwise I think you're going
to have an interesting discussion and so I give work to be done you thank you very much furor
by then you guys are also so and this year and you guys they call me and we with is a tough community I found it but they you know and that a bad patch and I got this you know data so you know itself actually stem from a double or a Ruby guys were not akin to Europe but this is a funny community this year and community and done many community projects many and is the 1st ones large community project where there's no fighting and no origin and people are going to be a little bit but in Xi'an the community if you look at them in unless you won't find flame wars you won't find people with any kind of emotional with anxiety or this is is basically a very pragmatic straightforward walking through what happens and this is this is very unusual in a in a large projects um museum Q is actually a project of projects I looked at the gate have organization there about 675 projects that use urine can title somewhere in the tub is about I think 15 year organizations it's about half million lines of code but with about 400 contributors OK in about 7 years building this up activities figures just to tell you how big it is and how activities but my 1 of our project is a C binding that has another at 10 languages on top of that user can it and exist the Q or see or camel CO 2 of course to Ruby bindings on topic never was going and the Python binding on top of that and the chorus here libraries about 33 thousand lines of code so it's about 15 17 % of the whole project and this is a big project is successful and yet we don't really argue or fight also we don't do design we don't do meetings we don't to Iousy meetings we barely have meetups anymore to organize these meetups you know like 2 3 weekends where we discussed would come in the next version we still doing all of that now and then we have the we have beer it's about it now the we don't meetings Iousy we don't you wish lists we don't have roadmaps this barely anyone in charge even mean 9 and 10 of injured but I was so busy that you have to my kids the back of my 3 kids about them with me to come and see Berlin have few and you will be very good with them that I was was kind of a bit afraid of what happened but they've been they've been good thanks for that so this this a very strange community unusual in many ways and it's not accidental that this has happened over time we've developed over time a process in a way of working very deliberately to get away from certain problems now we do you solve problems and all of our problems somehow came from centralization as the theme of this talk today is about this kind of conflict and fight between centralization which we as engineers we love you know we love the feeling of being God in creating with our brain something miraculous in you and that requires costs and it requires power requires control and yet the natural world so our economies our our all things we we we live in is about decentralization giving up control if you look at a city like Berliner London and New York or Brussels at any village even who runs the feud the food supply system well nobody it's a completed a centralized system I think Berlin has maybe 2 days worth of food in the pipeline and yet we'll eat every day we have lovely ice cream and drinks and it's all magically working and no 1 is in charge and so are most essential systems are decentralized is nobody in charge and we know from the history of Europe that when someone organizes essential planning committee the results are disastrous right so why do we accept that in our software engineering projects OK if you look at those here in the community as a kind of a worked example of this what you will see is a decentralized and asynchronous concurrent message-driven Block 3 process with with no 1 really in charge of that we came from before was a very conventional single-threaded highly looked shared states very serial not very much concurrently going on there was no message passing process run by a few guys and I suppose that you will know for most of your work most of your projects very planned system possibly a hierarchy with a very clear flow of power from top to bottom FIL for orders executions most of you in companies you work and will recognize this is a daily environment right How many people work in companies or employers and don't have this model but I see very few hands a few very few and probably you're running your own companies at that point on charts in some way and when you scale to more than a few friends you find that you somehow need this level of caution so stepping back from controlling what we make allowing people to compete to make freely not deciding what the future will bring but only fitted to develop naturally in organically out of problems is is kind of difficult and yet if you can't do that you know where's the future 1st look at the future of computing specifically we come from a past where computers are very very expensive will remember IBM's famous market study of 50 mainframes as a global market we a future where computers are dirt cheap they literally cost less than 30 and there's trillions of and every year the folding of price falls in a number of computers rises as the future of computing is distributed with the we like it or not and if as engineers we can't build a successful scalable distributed software we don't have a job in 5 or 10 or 20 years time it's simply a matter of time not of cities but of when so our software engineers which we are asking the question is how do we build how do we build a successful distributed systems that's the future of our of our industry the answer apparently this is my best experience it is it kind weird the answer is we can't actually build successful systems we can only grow them so if you look at the examples that we have all of massively successful decentralized systems they've all been grown organically apparently without planning the Internet is the best example who built the internet nobody built it what is the internet we don't even know where the Internet is in a box on my table
don't break it right and this mysterious thing it defines their lives and is built by nobody for everybody has grown over time can anyone tell me what Internet actually is someone give me a one-liner to eat for the internet as our 1st volunteer the 1st person to give this a decent answer wins this book right now this book is worth it the microphone is there so if to move the microphone someone what is the Internet a network of autonomous networks now I like it but it's not good enough for to someone else sorry I have the microphone decide it's just the communication and not not good enough sorry it's this is where the sand up until somebody else on the Internet the Internet the you know the answer when I say to you like 0 yes of course and that's between computers it's there sorry everything that's between computer between computers now we're not dissatisfied it's a living beings it's a living being willing very met here not come up with it substrate to the human rights something I will make it easier all just give you the answer people for myself I like my own books the Internet is a stack of protocols OK it's very dry and academic and the Galician whatever RFCs the and instead is a stack of our seat we have now thousands of hours cities these to be only a handful of you doesn't the very 1st part of the I C 0 0 1 I believe is an for writing policies or got very close number 2 that is the Internet is a bunch of contracts what the this gentleman book on them and that that you the the fun thing to note about the Internet is that when it was invented which it wasn't when it was born which is more accurate there were very many companies very many large companies with existing similar systems it was like it was nothing in and some guys in a garage that holders make some networking among the biggest companies in the world have spent billions in making these networks and this went on as long as who who was still you guys all very young ladies and gentlemen but I remember 1995 and I remember Windows 95 which came out with add networking and then they brought networking and the call the MSN 1 . 0 and that was Microsoft network and it didn't even talk to the internet which they regard as a second-class thing kind of a gypsy nerd rubbish and MSN 1 did not on the internet and we had a well with IBM with the LU 6 . 2 and all this rubbish it was that the Internet came in at in avoiding it was competing against the largest companies in the world with the biggest budget in the most brilliant engineers and the most power right and it destroyed then without even blinking at us for them right in thinking about it twice so we're talking here about a very significant competitive advantage everybody whose job it was to build LU 6 . 2 bridges had to either learn something else or go on retirement right there was no future in IBM networking or even a novel networking in the end and certainly not in MSN and they will only because again with lots of free CDs and spam vessel for years and the Internet this stupid little RFCs became a world power they became a superpower and yet nobody nobody really invest in that huge amounts of money there was no 1 backing it there was no we know Steve Jobs and Bill Gates behind them that demonstrated the power of the market when it's enabled by accurate contracts which is what our season OK and so we've all lived through these growth of this superpower technology growing by competition and collaboration with actually very few fights and arguments most of the fights and arguments were from the losers when they discover they couldn't hijacker process or you can use our patented e-mail so we can't capture this in this most of the actual on his work was done by any fighting argumentative as we all know this but we cannot ignore it and we come back to the old model of trying to make stuff by powers right is very ironic how we can minimize have these to completely constant of contradictory models operation will depend on the 1 hand you'll make the other and so let me show you 1 of these little bit argumentative controversial statements I like to make about the nature of good software all those IBM engineers and even was the Microsoft engineers in this the novel engineers all made good software they were all very good programmers they were all you know highly selected good degrees in computer science the whole MIT fantastic you know scalable algorithms and everything else perfect all this stuff was thrown out right as is most of the so what defines good software and I'll argue that most of us in industry have a completely wrong understanding of that some of our biggest weakness is that we do not understand what qualities and software we fundamentally got it wrong and that wrong assumption drives us to extraordinary mistakes a lot of what we did in this the committee was to correct that big misunderstanding what I consider to be a big misunderstanding about suffer quality and so on the old model of collaboration and 0 in the community was I'll explain how it works there was a guy who's who was the main also he was the main role of you would write code the very clever genius man was a friend of his who was the main maintainer and he could understand getting branches and mergers and packages and make files and all controls very complex stuff we could talk to this man here they would the brain to synchronize with this amazing shared state which involves lots of beer and meetings and strange locations and these 2 were very good With amazingly good software which is very fast and didn't crash and was good was amazing and is all these gonna guys here word like using it in contributing but the contributions had to go by a mailing list to 1 of these 2 guys here who would then look at the minimalist
patches and saying we don't like the patch we don't agree with your patch we think patch is soon will
like it and you know it's basically is our baby so you know I like it will think about it you could badly indented mean and so there was this very strange communication process based on pure monopoly of power it was a purely classic very serial single-threaded highly blocking synchronous process based on this fuzzy communication nobody could ever track no 1 ever knew what the basis was for a decision the users had no idea and I think after I had like my 4th or 5th patch rejected likewise must've been rejected and they contribute here I mean of course I feel very hurt and the a couple my babies and so this is terrible what I really felt was like if I'm getting my stuff rejected what about other people this sucks and this was my money on the table so I was however not as well as a business and that wasn't the worst part the worst part was that what came out of this process was really rubbish was really bad it was it was actually it was actually said it took us like 6 months to make a stable release we would spend 6 months just removing bugs from raw called we would throw this stuff users who would say it's better than being stabbed in the i would afford but it's really it's really was this stuff so so overall why is it so immature why is it so you know so much untested code in this called base because this guy wrote qualities of regulation like to write code engineers right cause and as we went through this kind of process of maturing the codebase he discovered that a lot of the core that was in there was never actually used it was written for no reason except the person who wrote it thought in his opinion that people might need it 1 day or was found to write it or he absolutely had to make you convinced had to make but he was wrong we often wrong as humans and so what came out in the pipeline and look at the 1st versions of 0 and q there that kind of embarrassing and they're very good in certain ways but there obviously completely wrong that's why nobody uses them today it's kind of obvious and aloe over time we've gotten packages and designs that emerge which are more more more accurate that using them and the current process is very strange basically you send a pull request to master then all merchant and that's it it's it's really that simple it's not quite that simple there's a little bit of both filtering of insanity but not much and even insanity I tend to welcome and embrace it and see if you really crazy enough to send me a completely in simple request I kind of like your your character come and join us you know the it's always good to have diversity people who agrees with me by very useful to me in my projects people who argue with me are always more valuable the lowest challenge my perspective and often they'll be right all be wrong in fact and maybe the patches and the right patch but their presence is the right presence and then you get to see the software not as the quality in terms of how fast or how beautiful but in terms of how accurate and how relevant which is a completely different things right 1 person or a small team can write very high quality suffer in terms of its technical characteristics but they are incompetent in writing software that is relevant to a broader market and in fact only the market can write that software and so to make it successful large systems you need to bring in successfully the large market to make the systems OK and so on when you building sufferers has to be distributed which as I explained in the future of those demand you need to bring in communities are distributed otherwise you can build the systems not starting with me at the microphones of I should maybe give some diplomatic poses and people to stand up and OK any time you like to raise your hands and said Peter this stuff is is that this ludicrous you know you've heard of Conway's Law Conway's laws coming copula it says that as an organization we build systems that mirror our communication patterns in your organization if we are a top-down hierarchy with a very uh coercive use of power and a very 1 way learning where you learn at university you apply in your job and that's it than itself make look like that it'll be very big monolithic hockey with the flow of power from top to bottom and basically very fragile over time this Microsoft Windows we know how it happened it works and how does if we are decentralized so the organization was nobody really in charge with very strong contracts between different pieces between different layers with a very smooth process for improving those contracts where the contracts let us compete very honestly and all be built in the end it is 8 so far for systems based on contracts with nobody really in charge of the competition between pieces a very different perspective gentlemen holder I believe nothing here because this is not about the moderating understand in question so we describe only the in the process that you established with 0 and q besides so if you repeat the question what you describe with the process with a 0 and q that sounds like an coding wiki right so basically people contribute their culture and when you look at it and doesn't look like someone to crazy uh so you know merger so so how do you how do you make sure that if you really is optimal and lecture right but what is the experience then when you release something in terms of breakage and by how do you deal with tests and things like this like is of practical concerns from OK so the question is how do you that come back to quality in a certain level what what what is your testable status for you deliverable and I'll answer the question all 1st of thing comment about what happened when we moved toward our process it was about 2 years ago are believed to have years ago and actually my model and I explain to people was Wikipedia I said I want to get as close 2nd Wikipedia and people said Peter you're insane I might I might be insane but I know what I'm talking about with this year will my goal is to bring in the most possible contributors and given the most freedom to make good stuff and when there are mistakes to detect them and fix them as fast as possible so low latency I don't want 6 months cycles I want 6 hours cycles or 6 minutes cycles and making mistakes is fine is only policies of a disability computing is that the world is perfect but physics is not perfect there's always lag was business vulnerabilities things break things disappear people make mistakes people make the biggest small mistakes and the trick is to let people make mistakes to learn from them and not to punish them and let them or others to detect and fix those mistakes very rapidly Wikipedia does this obviously has been criticized for decades but these 2 years as being full of trolls and vandals but if you look at it what you see is a very successful accumulation of very accurate knowledge over time more more more more unstoppably it's never had any real prices and that's because although you can vandalize any page you can also fix any vandalisation very quickly and so that was my kind of ideal model for the code base was where I could almost get the master branches to be production quality almost all the time and that's what we got today but today most of my work is always base of master on on many projects on this community we don't use civil reasoning was still make them for customers discussed was like that but we get to the point now where the master branch is quality usable and had to be defined usability and so making you it's had defined itself as reliable trustable what we did is we let the users of course contribute test cases and the test cases are a contract and when we build and we have a travesty I running on this all the time if you if you if you make a change the brakes attested shows right away and red is an error this stuff is broken that's not fatal mistake it just a mistake somebody can fix it but it shows right away so the thing about contracts context by themselves aren't enough the context must be testable and the faster and the most often the more attractive it can be tested the better this is why our Caesar particles can be tested you if you have a web server and you write it and it doesn't perform you can test that was that clients people do this all the time that's how you how you check it so every patch goes on master gets committed emerged just get run if it's broken master we know about it and a test cases have grown and grown and grown and grown as as they were
applied systematically as a quality measure is simply grew to cover everything and now the cover the whole API and and that seems to work very well I think you're 1st before that thank you I would you to almost you fit but from what I thought I'd I doing appellate the felt because you on open false confidence but we have a dictator for life but and the thing with you know the the 11th at the 1st step toward was the dominant in the 1st phase of uh so maybe this dominant with more or even always policy is some of the best I told what the taught to a talk to people think that you have a good mother ship something whatever uh and and some the argument this because it is a lot of the things that they can do you can vandalize pages and their corrected but the problem of some political pages and the head of the left we people non-democratic views especially against not that is that we've against all German flow opinion in the left week people so there's no doubt with the you cannot you but the point with somebody on Wikipedia and he 2 from the page so let's take these points 1 by 1 so the 1st point is about the role of a benevolent dictator in a in a project Open Source project the 2nd question is about controversy controversy in in in knowledge and propaganda and so on OK but the 2nd point for the thing about software is that you don't really have controversy in in in perspective and points of view were not being journalism luckily and I think with wikipaedia there is this kind of it it covers a very broad scale the cover very old on controversial subjects to to journalism and there is always going to be a part of Wikipedia which is it's extraordinary controversial if you if you trying to get a single point of view you cannot that those in those pages however that controversy has to go somewhere this will happen Ms. will be documented and may as well be captured in some place in Wikipedia serves for that purpose it was a real controversy let it be documented what we have in the in the open source community where we have controversies people fork projects and they make computing projects so we let people make 5 public packages doing the same thing if they're arguing about the approach and then the customers choose and effectively you get to the market saying I prefer that perspective I prefer the point of view and that's fine so we we try to of course we don't see because of 1 point of view of this should be 1 single way of doing things thinking about things when this when there's competition of ideas and when there's conflict let the market decide make many people the freedom to create around that and now becomes the role of the dictator I'm I I'm I'm probably the largest contributor to 0 and q have still programming all the time but I'm not really the 1 who wrote it was a team that rotates mostly Marcus just across the 1st the 1st 2 generations of it my role is mostly being lawyer it's mostly been writing RFCs and solve problems problem solving some of the would have done over the years is use it to write about it and from the perspective of the users solve the problems in the process rather than trying to push through any design ideology or push through any kind of technical vision I have a technical vision if I do I put it away it's posting junk when I think projects in the past with lots of technical vision they were garbage very fast beautifully documented well written garbage and so when I have technical vision and very skeptical of it and I put it away and I try to get the market to tell me what to actually make and so I teach people that same process kind of you know modesty which is hard for me really but I think all there has something on 1 more questions before I do that is itself if is height and so that this is a sort of a political question from the technical 1 of because we're talking about the way you organize people and resources and where the power flows and things like that come and it strikes me that uh the perspective that you'll talking about is an an archaic and and it means that in the Roman republic often hate each other over the head with a club I mean the political philosophy of anarchy which is I guess I've summarizes being the people who should make the decision should be closest to the ones are actually going to be doing this stuff that effect that that the effect of that decision so it's a very bottom-up rather than top-down way of doing things organizing things up my question then is I did that outlook and perhaps some role in putting that outlook on you did their outlook on emerge from the bottom altered that start because you thought because that's already in existing perspective that you have and the way 0 and Q has has developed in in the way that you've described it in terms of the way the you know the the project is organized as that more reflection of you in your your outlook all that that that the groups and and I think that could I think in terms of anarchy is what you call the philosophical anarchy where there is no authority but anyone can choose authority they like best so you could model this in terms of you do have countries and governments that you can move to any country you like and there infinitely big and if you don't like government in tax systems and the infrastructure move somewhere else so there is no authority and the has the authority the reason is if you're trying to work with contracts and base year collaboration contracts when there's a conflict when someone people cheat people do cheat who enforces the contracts where's your tribunal where's your court you need a monopoly of power to stop people cheating so an anarchistic systems doesn't take into account that you have a small percentage of determined cheat determine cheats people who are either predisposed to always cheating maybe the psychopathic by nature and they will always cheat added at a at a at a boring talent or they will be opportunistic sheets to see money on the table and say hi I steal the money now about my morals aside for a few few days cheap but people will be present and they will do great damage to communities like really really serious damage not been communities in large communities which were torn apart by a few cheap literally destroyed the work of thousands of people and it's it's it's a terrible thing to see and 1 of those was like that in our antipatents identify which as president of and I was trying to run this organization by consensus and there were a few guys are musician who were determined to cheat and because I didn't really have the moral authority being the founder I couldn't tell them to stop and I couldn't convince them to stop and it tore the transition to pieces it was a terrible terrible thing so I'm very pragmatic about identifying sources of conflict and sources of damage to other people's work and stopping them by any means necessary including real violence that I have to all be very brutal to be but considered to be a threat to people like to be valuable to each other right so it's not anarchism a sense of how a little too will be like that doesn't work in my experience but the authorities there to protect not not to attack and is there to protect the work of the collective um and if you look at me to read my book which you should the book is very good I like the book and that but at at at at at at thank the book him out of my my my work in politics and my work to organize people for politics and doesn't explain this to others how to organize and how to build communities for political ends and my sister who's was a professor in political science is all your remarks sales Marxist and other Marx's time of free markets you know on the kind of I'm a free markets and I'm in Adam Smith's you know I I believe in the free market in the beauty of the market generally are marked cannibalism Marxist OK I'm a marxist so I didn't grow up to be a Marxist axioms of the writing capitalists and businessmen might make money but it turns out the best way to make money is to make many people happy and it turns out that requires a you know a good efficient markets with good rules and with you know that authority and we come to certain forms of anarchism but not i inventors worse extending that to just mention that you believe in their and hence this theory that but invisible and because I think that you're missing in your view it that's behind power there people and I want to ask how many woman in this room right now because we have to fight always IT and we have to justify how we are doing that because I was in the Django grows project and I don't know how it was between them meaning that the patent society heights works for a woman to express the point of view better in inference somebody try to do something like that and was fraught out so I
think you're missing that's in this room there are many many white was lost and that behind there's people then and there is this maybe you think that you don't have any oriented view or stuff like that but you you are in fact oriented in when you choose to have people like doing the codes you choose to have this guy but maybe it's front for others maybe you are missing that behind powers there's people so thank you for your question I guess to of paraphrase what you're asking for it is how this kind of I guess a fairly pragmatic process takes go into account diversity whether it be diversity of origin or gender or religion or culture or whatever um I'm not going to talk about women in software that's a different issue and some expertise on the white man I have I cannot talk about diversity very much I grew up in many countries my I think my mother language when I was young was nearly as much as it was English my wife is Congolese I know about culture diversity but I can't talk for for women what I can talk about is the the work we've done to remove the preconceptions that filter out contributions and and on hazardous that's been but a lot of the uh the bias that people might have to water contribution because they know who they are and you're my friend therefore lecture patches I don't know you are objective was taken away if you look at our process there is no basis for discrimination in the process however would have also noticed is that our contributors on more and more dominant e-mail not from any 1 country and they were very around the world vary geographically diverse but I believe the process is a fairly brutal process in certain ways for competitive and may have a certain communication pattern that feels pretty masculine as possible and if that's the case and happy to get patches and changes and suggestions when it comes to the people in the invisible hand in the market what I think is is is observable but I think the the basis for economics is is that we make money we make a market by specializing and by trading that's to say that diversity doesn't have to mean we all do the same thing it and we can do many different things and work together and having different talents in our minds makes us valuable right this is the difference is valuable differences of makes us valuable as individuals being different from the people is a valuable thing should be a valuable thing if we're free to use that difference to trade to connect people if there's no barriers to communication of barriers to moving to different place to work whatever but more than that identity come from the attorney that you say that you are and you have no bias that 1 now keep a job maze of a survey most of the notes say there is no 6 and then use the woman and all the woman's again there is this isn't so tiny that uses that the unbiased unbiased and buys by definition I can't see my unbiased I couldn't tell you where it is I feel that I grew up in I have 4 sisters my group in a family where we were we were you know but of course and by but everybody in this room is biased in different ways that no 1 on earth is not biased by their own perception of the world and I don't even I suspect that gender biases and even the largest bias we have bias we have language biases so many biases so you know that's that's kind of the reality we live in and I don't want to make that into you know more happiness of people except to make more doors open the more opportunity for people to contribute in different ways and yeah thank you for the question OK so this is the 2 last questions of 5 minutes left in the interest right the other 1st again OK OK uh my question the use of you thought was that the about the market deciding about their own self and not 1 the person making all the decisions I want to put that in and say quote from the book The settles that idea of the system the army the user you think when the people decide about software when they always choose the best of the software for their own benefit without what's interesting about with with talking about the ability of the market to make decisions and and what I think is most interesting is not so much about these solution 4 to clear problem there are many solutions for problems and we can always move around and change solutions what's most interesting and what's most valuable and what defines combat quality in software is choosing the right problems and solving the right problems and solving them because problems 1st the now once you identify the the right problem to solve you force you can throw away solutions come with new solutions and what we really depend on on on a community for what we would be back on the community is to identify the right problems in the biggest problems and those we solved and then the solutions to common goal over time there was much trash OK that answer questions well said thanks American state any multiple people don't like when people choose the system that is the most easy and most of that things the all that we have so for example if the ease of use more equipment performance that's that's a valid choice I mean everyone is making a bet on the wrong when the choose for their betting their time and money on that of course that's about it you can see not aligned with the new but that's your business benefit you that that's that doesn't work so just the core was about that the rains will will as over time that's was the negative things that they may choose talking thank you it's hello it everybody yes some listen to you and my feeling exists that we just compared to times of management and director management and participatory the management and my question is quite you see is not just a question of resources mean when we speak about next was beginning you have to you have few resources and send you have to move to to go up on not to grouped transformed and it was not so easy to to lack of enough resources to move to just through to listen to the market because the market was just at the beginning when we are now at that time and to from it so today we as a community of much larger and for that reason these resources is much easier to move to to bring for projects is much easier to have participative uh management now OK so the question is whether this is a different management styles seasonal and with expression of size or not there is a management consultant a long time ago that called Argyris has 2 models using resources arduous model 1 arduous model to is worth reading about and this is exactly the the dichotomy model 1 is a top-down learning process to the university workshops you applying your job the model to is a circular system where you learn as you work and you apply that all the way around it's not about scale those models apply whether you're a team of 5 or 5 thousand both models they're quite inconsistent if you can't make a shift from 1 the other very easily there they're competing models but they are 2 management styles yes most definitely and it's it's not my invention I mean no 1 invent anything we reuse of rediscovered self the people living doing for a long time there are companies which operate on model to very successfully in internet they're very fluid and they look very strange but very successful and most companies operating model 1 but some of its size when I began making a committee with you to the goal was from the very beginning was to build this kind of ago a learning in a building by learning rather building by by document and by this and just to remind you I think it's that's only the human resources that curious from key resources I think we have to finish their and their and think it is also going to be around the world so this discussion 1 last 20 2nd half contains here that this has decentralized organization works from engaging decentralized we do have some flights from conflicts can have things a lot of that I was listening to you and was thinking this guy needs to go to these big economy from the other where the units used to go on to be the leaders you the because people in power right now but you need to hear you and they are they don't and I don't want a topic that I mean I do that I want to to hear OK they can read my books has been up for sale if you want some outside the thank you all very much for being here today thank you
Software
Code
Hausdorff-Dimension
EDV-Beratung
Physikalisches System
Computeranimation
Übergang
Bit
Knotenmenge
Bildschirmmaske
Sichtenkonzept
Zwei
Ein-Ausgabe
Computeranimation
Zentralisator
Resultante
Bit
Punkt
Prozess <Physik>
Quader
Selbst organisierendes System
Formale Sprache
Versionsverwaltung
Automatische Handlungsplanung
Zahlenbereich
Hierarchische Struktur
Computerunterstütztes Verfahren
Code
Computeranimation
Übergang
Internetworking
Eins
Informationsmodellierung
Software
Prozess <Informatik>
Minimum
Programmbibliothek
Figurierte Zahl
Gerade
Leistung <Physik>
Beobachtungsstudie
Schnelltaste
Mailing-Liste
Physikalisches System
p-Block
Datenfluss
Großrechner
Patch <Software>
Verknüpfungsglied
Verbandstheorie
Rechter Winkel
Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Datenverarbeitung
Gamecontroller
Projektive Ebene
Ordnung <Mathematik>
Software Engineering
Programmierumgebung
Message-Passing
Tabelle <Informatik>
Aggregatzustand
Bit
Programmiergerät
Prozess <Physik>
Freeware
Natürliche Zahl
Bridge <Kommunikationstechnik>
Computer
Computerunterstütztes Verfahren
Computeranimation
Internetworking
Algorithmus
Skalierbarkeit
Prozess <Informatik>
Bildschirmfenster
Kontrollstruktur
E-Mail
Metropolitan area network
Parametersystem
Nichtlinearer Operator
Befehl <Informatik>
Datennetz
Kategorie <Mathematik>
Güte der Anpassung
Systemaufruf
Entscheidungstheorie
Softwarewartung
Motion Capturing
Kollaboration <Informatik>
Verbandstheorie
Rechter Winkel
Autonomic Computing
URL
Aggregatzustand
Telekommunikation
Zahlenbereich
Systemzusammenbruch
Code
Informationsmodellierung
Software
Spyware
Microsoft Network
Informatik
Leistung <Physik>
Protokoll <Datenverarbeitungssystem>
Verzweigendes Programm
Mailing-Liste
Physikalisches System
Elektronische Publikation
Design by Contract
Patch <Software>
Minimalgrad
Softwareschwachstelle
Mereologie
Gamecontroller
Wort <Informatik>
Bit
Spiegelung <Mathematik>
Punkt
Prozess <Physik>
Inferenz <Künstliche Intelligenz>
Freeware
Natürliche Zahl
Versionsverwaltung
Schreiben <Datenverarbeitung>
Baumechanik
Computerunterstütztes Verfahren
Gesetz <Physik>
Computeranimation
Eins
Homepage
Übergang
Client
Prozess <Informatik>
Minimum
Bildschirmfenster
Mustersprache
Maschinelles Sehen
Einflussgröße
Phasenumwandlung
Regulator <Mathematik>
Bildauflösung
Softwaretest
Parametersystem
Zentrische Streckung
Sichtenkonzept
Physikalischer Effekt
Benutzerfreundlichkeit
Güte der Anpassung
Gebäude <Mathematik>
Ideal <Mathematik>
Quellcode
Kontextbezogenes System
Entscheidungstheorie
Arithmetisches Mittel
Generator <Informatik>
Kollaboration <Informatik>
Rechter Winkel
Server
Projektive Ebene
Charakteristisches Polynom
Fehlermeldung
Tabelle <Informatik>
Telekommunikation
Subtraktion
Selbst organisierendes System
Gruppenoperation
Mathematisierung
Physikalismus
Abgeschlossene Menge
Hierarchische Struktur
Term
Physikalische Theorie
Code
Überlagerung <Mathematik>
Bildschirmmaske
Benutzerbeteiligung
Informationsmodellierung
Bereichsschätzung
Reelle Zahl
Software
Perspektive
Determiniertheit <Informatik>
Grundraum
Schreib-Lese-Kopf
Leistung <Physik>
Autorisierung
Soundverarbeitung
Videospiel
Open Source
Verzweigendes Programm
Einfache Genauigkeit
Schlussregel
Kopula <Mathematik>
Physikalisches System
Datenfluss
Quick-Sort
Design by Contract
Patch <Software>
Fuzzy-Logik
Softwareschwachstelle
Basisvektor
Mereologie
Dreiecksfreier Graph
Codierung
Speicherabzug
Partikelsystem
Axiom
Telekommunikation
Orientierung <Mathematik>
Subtraktion
Prozess <Physik>
Selbst organisierendes System
Wasserdampftafel
Mathematisierung
Formale Sprache
Familie <Mathematik>
Gruppenkeim
Versionsverwaltung
EDV-Beratung
Sondierung
Marketinginformationssystem
Computeranimation
Internetworking
Arithmetischer Ausdruck
Informationsmodellierung
Einheit <Mathematik>
Datenmanagement
Prozess <Informatik>
Software
Nichtunterscheidbarkeit
Mustersprache
Vorlesung/Konferenz
Grundraum
E-Mail
Auswahlaxiom
Feuchteleitung
Metropolitan area network
Leistung <Physik>
Verschiebungsoperator
Einfach zusammenhängender Raum
Zentrische Streckung
Sichtenkonzept
Benutzerfreundlichkeit
Gebäude <Mathematik>
Dichotomie
Hasard <Digitaltechnik>
Physikalisches System
Entscheidungstheorie
Patch <Software>
Geschlecht <Mathematik>
Rechter Winkel
Basisvektor
Codierung
Speicherabzug
Projektive Ebene
Aggregatzustand

Metadaten

Formale Metadaten

Titel Our decentralized future
Serientitel EuroPython 2014
Teil 28
Anzahl der Teile 120
Autor Hintjens, Pieter
Lizenz CC-Namensnennung 3.0 Unported:
Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen.
DOI 10.5446/20017
Herausgeber EuroPython
Erscheinungsjahr 2014
Sprache Englisch
Produktionsort Berlin

Inhaltliche Metadaten

Fachgebiet Informatik
Abstract Pieter Hintjens - Our decentralized future Pieter will talk about the urgent push towards a decentralized future. As founder of the ZeroMQ community, he will explain the vision, design and reality of distributed software systems. He’ll explain his view on the community itself, also a highly decentralized “Living System”, as Hintjens calls it. Finally he’ll talk about edgenet, a model for a decentralized Internet.
Schlagwörter EuroPython Conference
EP 2014
EuroPython 2014

Ähnliche Filme

Loading...