The Dunbar number in open source

5 Replies

For those interested in open-source systems (everything from public policy to software) should listen to Christopher Allen’s talk (his blog here) on the Dunbar Number.

Dunbar’s number, which is 150, represents a theoretical maximum number of individuals with whom a set of people can maintain a social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who each person is and how each person relates socially to every other person.

Malcolm Gladwell brought the Dunbar number into popular discourse when he referenced it in his book The Tipping Point.

However, Allen’s talk tries to nuance the debate. Specifically, he wishes that those who reference the Dunbar number would be more aware that in he research literature, the mean group size of 150 only applies to groups with high incentives to stay together. As examples he cites nomadic tribes, armies, terrorist organizations, mafias, etc… in short, groups in which mutual trust and strong relationships are essential for survival. This is in part due to the fact that there is a cost group members must pay to maintaining this groups of this size: one must spend 40% of ones time engaged in “social grooming.” This means sitting around listening to one another, talking, being engaged, etc… Without this social grooming it is difficult to develop and maintain the unstructured trust that holds the group together.

More interestingly Allen’s research suggests that in modern groups there is a correlation between group satisfaction and the size of the group. Things work well between 3-12 people and from 25-80. But in between there is this hole. Groups in this “chasm” are too be too big to use many of the tools (like meetings) that small groups can use, but too small to successfully rely on the tools (such as hierarchies and reporting mechanisms) that allow larger groups to function.

Open source projects (and really any new project) should find this interesting. There is a group size chasm that must, at some point, be crossed. When I’m less tired I will try to wander over to sourceforge and see if I can plot the size of the projects there to see if they scale up nicely against Allen’s graph.

In addition, I’m curious as to whether some softer skills around facilitation would allow groups to function more effectively, even within this “chasm.”

Beasley on Affordable Housing in Vancouver

3 Replies

Last weekend Larry Beasley gave the keynote speech at the Dream Vancouver conference hosted by Think City. Beasley the former head city planner has been credited with transforming Vancouver into the success story that it is.
Think City Logo

(As a brief aside, Dream Vancouver was a great exercise. Big kudos to the organizers. Any event that brings together and connects citizens who share a passion for Vancouver is a success in my mind.)

Affordable housing has become a significant issue in Calgary and Toronto, but in no city is the issue more problematic – or long running – than Vancouver. Beasley blamed this on a commonly understood fact – Vancouver has been blessed and cursed by its international stature. The property market in Vancouver is simply not restricted to the city’s population. For reasons of investment, political security, and sometimes just for a pad to crash, the whole world wishes to own a part of the city and it is driving up real estate costs. To fully grasp the magnitude of the problem, one developer informed me that up a 1/3 of some residential towers in downtown Vancouver sit empty. I’ve been unable to confirm this figure, but it is a startling number if true.

How can the city address this challenge?

Beasley offered three possibilities. First, he noted that the False Creek Flats – a large piece of industrial land to the east of downtown – is ripe for development. This is an area of land larger than downtown Vancouver and which, if developed appropriately, could provide a variety of housing to meet the demand of the market. A carefully thought through plan combining market housing, social housing, and a third hybrid model (outlined below) could turn the False Creek Flats into an vibrant urban centre – a neighborhood Beasley suggested be called Crosstown.

Second, he suggested Vancouverites from all political stripes re-examine Eco-Density. Beasley argued that Eco-Density is a tremendous piece of marketing that has captured the imagination of many people. He concedes, the term remains fairly vacuous (my word, not his) – but believes this is an opportunity, not a liability. What Vancouverites need to do is give the term substance and form. Obviously this means greater density – Beasley appears to favour row houses – but it could also mean much more. The question is: what more?

Finally, Beasley talked about aMadrid model for urban development. Madrid is probably even more of an international city than Vancouver, and consequently faces many of the same pressures around affordable housing. Spain in general is the recipient of many European snow-birds (although I presume mainly in the south) so the pressures created by foreign owned housing receives national attention. Beasley outlined how, in Madrid, the government builds and sells off apartments to owners that agree to live in them themselves. In addition, the owners must sell the property back to the government at a pre-agreed price. The re-sale amount ensures that the owners receive a modest return on their investment (Beasley didn’t share what the rate of return is) and that the government can resell the house to a new owner at a controlled price. This ensures property values increase at a controlled pace and keeps the costs of running such a program exceedingly low. Consequently, this hybrid of social and market housing is intriguing. Under the right circumstances it would attract buyers looking for housing and discriminate against those seeking only an investment. However, it remains unclear to me how one would allocate these properties (perhaps through a bidding process?). In addition, I’ve been unable to find any literature on this hybrid model… I hope to have more on it at some point.

All in all, an intriguing set of ideas. I’d never seen Beasley speak before – I can see why he’s got such a loyal following in the city.

The US Navy – Global Warming's Latest Convert

7 Replies

Mark M. put me on to the US Navy’s recently published strategy document “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.”

So what does the US Navy have to say about its global strategy?

The vast majority of the world’s population lives within a few hundred
miles of the oceans. Social instability in increasingly crowded cities,
many of which exist in already unstable parts of the world, has the
potential to create significant disruptions. The effects of climate change
may also amplify human suffering through catastrophic storms, loss of
arable lands, and coastal flooding, could lead to loss of life, involuntary
migration, social instability, and regional crises. (page 7)

Yes – the United States Commander-and-Chief may be uncertain about global warming, but his Admirals and seamen are confident that it is real and that it will/should shape their maritime strategy.

But then, given how reluctant Bush has never been one to listen to his Generals – it’s unclear why he would listen to his Admirals.

Another thought, courtesy of Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus: when the US Navy is planning around Global Warming you know the debate has moved on. Why even bother engaging the deniers – let’s focus on the problem, the US military is.

David Beers on Vancouver Eating its Young

12 Replies

David Beers published a piece entitled “Why Does Vancouver Eat its Young?” in yesterday’s Globe and Mail. I agree with David’s sentiment, Vancouver does eat its young. Moreover, and many of his points are valid (e.g. the NPA’s closure of the Child and Youth Advocate office). But I chaffed at the partisan perspective of a news editor who founded a newspaper because he didn’t like the partisan perspective of other BC newspapers. I like the Tyee and even publish there, but its hard to not grow tired of its relentlessly partisan approach (Raif Mair, a balanced newspaper does not make) and its simplistic view of BC politics: Liberal=bad, NDP=good (or at least, not bad). While the investigative journalism is needed and deeply appreciated, I’m often left wondering if the Tyee is simply trying to become a left-wing version of “The Sun.”All the more so since it is funded by a silent, and secret, partner – rumored to be the BC Federation of Labour.

Take for example his op-ed. Both the provincial NDP and the BC Liberals have invested in social housing (the Liberals may be late to the game, but they’ve stumped up some serious cash). But neither has a track record of addressing affordable housing – the issue that could help Rachel, the op-ed’s protagonist.

In addition to the partisan swipes, the piece is premised on some highly problematic analysis and is factually wrong. Nowhere is this better illustrated than Beers choice of Montreal as a viable alternative to Vancouver. For an article whose theme is how Baby Boomers are shifting problems and costs on to young people, choosing Montreal as a positive counter example is, at best, questionable.

Montreal is a fun city to live in – I know, I’ve lived there. It has a vibrant arts scene and great nightlife. It is not however a utopia or sustainable policy alternative.

Montreal – and the province of Quebec – has the largest debt/per capita and deficit/per capita in the country (it ranks second highest in dept/gdp ratio) Despite having the highest tax rate in the country, Quebec is about to leave the next generation a whopping $117billion(!!!) debt, and a $2.1billon deficit (in 2005). If there is one place in the country that is mortgaging its young to satisfy the needs of Boomers, it is Montreal. Why? Because almost all this money goes into operational spending. Little is invested into infrastructure for the future. This is a city and province where, literally, bridges fall on citizens and universities place mesh nets around buildings to prevent crumbling cement from falling on students. Quebec’s tuitions may be low, but its universities are bankrupt.

Montreal is also not a homeowners’ paradise. It has one of the lowest rates of home ownership in Canada: only 50% percent of Montrealers own their home vs. 61% of Vancouverites. While public policy – such as the adoption of row houses – helps depress rents, one reason rental apartments remain easy to find is that an astonishing 200,000 people (11% of the population) left the city between 1971 and 1981. That loss still impacts the city today. It has yet to recapture it’s 1971 population peak of 1,960,000. Indeed, three and a half decades later it is still shy by 100,000. Not only has the city yet to recover demographically, it only recently climbed out of the referendum induced recession which saw jobs – for the young and old – dry up. This is a dramatic price to pay for affordability and it offers little in policy guidance to Vancouver’s city planners. (In contrast, Vancouver has grown by an astounding 35% since 1971)

Beers’ sentiment is right. Vancouver is not affordable. But is scoring cheap political points off the issue really the role for a newspaper editor? Especially one that is seeking to reframe the debate in British Columbia? There is a lot that can be done to tackle this issue… something I’ll dive into tomorrow while discussion the solution oriented speech Larry Beasley’s gave at the Imagine Vancouver conference this past weekend.

the significance of the afghan poll

20 Replies

In anticipation of the new Environics poll of Afghans I engaged in my biannual ceremonial watching of the CBC news. This poll is groundbreaking stuff since, until now, we’ve had very little data on what Afghans think. What is interesting about the poll isn’t the results per say, but the strength of the results. Equally interesting is the impact this could have politically here at home.

The Results

For example, people’s opinion of Canadian troops in Kandahar is remarkably positive, with 60% having a favourable opinion.

In addition – given the press reports we receive here in Canada – Afghans are actually comparatively upbeat about the effectiveness of the mission is itself.

I’d encourage everyone to take a look at the raw results yourself, they can be found on the Environics webpage.

The political impact

Before we begin, a caveat. I’m sure there are those who are thinking: this poll was commissioned by Conservatives and was rigged to ensure a desirable outcome. This could not be further from the truth. This poll is the brain child of Environics which wanted to bring the Afghan perspective into the debate. It is important to note that Environics is the same company that brought us Fire and Ice, a book that presents a rather unflattering picture of America and argues Americans and Canadians are becoming more different. This is no right wing organization – if anything it leans the opposite way.

I argued earlier in the week that the Liberal position on Afghan has been pretty suspect. This poll makes things worse. To be blunt, it’s a disaster for the NDP and damaging for the Liberals.

The NDP position has been based on the assumption that the mission is a mess. Now we have evidence that Afghans actually want Canadians there, they don’t like the Taliban and they believe we are doing a relatively good job. We can no longer claim we’d be leaving a divided country that doesn’t want us.

For the Liberals the problem is similar – this is the party that spent two decades constructing a foreign policy around the human security agenda. More importantly, it has always wanted Canada’s foreign policy resources to “do good.” It would appear that the Afghans believe we are doing just that. In addition, if we left, we would jeopardizes this success. Both the NDP and the Liberals now have to explain why we should leave and risk abandoning the Afghans.

However, the poll creates a nuanced public policy challenge – one the Conservatives are susceptible to succumbing to. The danger is this poll will eliminate the option to leave Afghanistan under any conditions. This would be a grave mistake. There are a number of things that could dramatically alter the conditions that created this poll’s results. For example, spraying the opium fields with pesticides could turn significant parts of the population against both the international force and the Karzai government. Making the assumption that these polling numbers would be the same under such conditions could trap us in a rapidly deteriorating situation. For the time being, it appears the locals believe we are effective, and are grateful. If our allies take actions that would create a new set of conditions that threaten to destabilize the current environment then we should be prepared to announce we too will take action, including the possibility of pulling out.

Why the US isn't leaving Iraq – even under Hillary

1 Reply

Just read the three powerful paragraphs below off the recent Strafor report. Damning stuff. It suggests the prospect of the US concentrating forces in Afghanistan are slight as Iraq will continue to tie them down for the next several years. Moreover, if there was ever any doubt, it should now be erased: the Neo-cons have created a geopolitical disaster that makes Vietnam look minor. The US had few tangible interests in Vietnam – in Iraq it has to worry about the stability of global oil supply.

“After years of organizational chaos, the United States has simplified its plan for Iraq: Prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Once-lofty thoughts of forging a democracy in general or supporting a particular government were abandoned in Washington well before the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. Reconstruction is on the back burner and even oil is now an afterthought at best. The entirety of American policy has been stripped down to a single thought: Iran.

That thought is now broadly held throughout not only the Bush administration but also the American intelligence and defense communities. It is not an unreasonable position. An American exodus from Iraq would allow Iran to leverage its allies in Iraq’s Shiite South to eventually gain control of most of Iraq. Iran’s influence also extends to significant Shiite communities on the Persian Gulf’s western oil-rich shore. Without U.S. forces blocking the Iranians, the military incompetence of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar could be perceived by the Iranians as an invitation to conquer that shore. That would land roughly 20 million barrels per day of global oil output — about one-quarter of the global total — under Tehran’s control. Rhetoric aside, an outcome such as this would push any U.S. president into a broad regional war to prevent a hostile power from shutting off the global economic pulse.

So the United States, for better or worse, is in Iraq for the long haul. This requires some strategy for dealing with the other power with the most influence in the country, Iran. This, in turn, leaves the United States with two options: It can simply attempt to run Iraq as a protectorate forever, a singularly unappealing option, or it can attempt to strike a deal with Iran on the issue of Iraq — and find some way to share influence.”

Apparently there is something worse than a contained Saddam Hussain in Iraq. An uncontained Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

The old, old, old war on drugs

6 Replies

Last night I was able to swing by the Wosk Centre for Dialogue to see Prof. Bruce Alexander receive the Nora and Ted Sterling Prize in support of Controversy (A prize established at Simon Fraser University to honor work which challenges complacency and that provokes controversy).

Prof. Alexander spoke of his personal history and research into addiction, but during the speech one factoid really stuck out.

He pointed out that the war on drugs has been going on much longer than I suspected. Indeed, in 1922 the government of the day apparently introduced whipping and deportation as a punishment for addiction and drug use. This is a level of shaming and deterrence the current government could only dream of implementing.

Did it have any impact on drug use? Of course not.

If whipping didn’t work, how is a “just say no” combined with stiffer criminal penalties going to have an impact? The creation of mandatory minimum sentences in the 1970s’ had no impact on drug use… how will this differ?

So why does the current government believe it’s new “tough on drugs” approach will yield better results? Because the new conservative drug policy isn’t about achieving results, it is about looking tough. Sadly, as it drives drug users and addicts further underground it will likely push them further out of reach of health and social workers, making the problem worse, not better.

Sigh…

Where are the progressives on Net Neutrality?

6 Replies

I’m excited to see that the Green Party has included a section on Net Neutrality in it’s platform.

4. Supporting the free flow of information

The Internet has become an essential tool in knowledge storage and the free flow of information between citizens. It is playing a critical role in democratizing communications and society as a whole. There are corporations that want to control the content of information on the internet and alter the free flow of information by giving preferential treatment to those who pay extra for faster service.

Our Vision

The Green Party of Canada is committed to the original design principle of the internet – network neutrality: the idea that a maximally useful public information network treats all content, sites, and platforms equally, thus allowing the network to carry every form of information and support every kind of application.

Green Solutions

Green Party MPs will:

  • Pass legislation granting the Internet in Canada the status of Common Carrier – prohibiting Internet Service Providers from discriminating due to content while freeing them from liability for content transmitted through their systems.

Liberals, NDP… we are waiting…

the manley inquiry into Afghanistan

17 Replies

Rudyard Griffiths has been calling for a blue ribbon commission into the future of Canada’s role in Afghanistan for a while. The good news is that the Prime Minister started listening to him. The bad news is that the Liberals are unhappy about it.

To date, the Conservatives have not had an inspired foreign policy. Indeed, they seem to lack confidence on this issue – something that may spring from the fact that this government is built around the old provincial Harris team who obviously didn’t have to think much about the subject. This insecurity – along with a desire to take a politically sensitive issue off the table in time for a possible fall election – has however forced them to adopt Griffiths’ advice.

This is good news for Canadian foreign policy and Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. The current debate on the Afghanistan mission has been mired in partisan battles shaped more by who can exploit the situation for political gain than by assessing what is the best option for Canada. On an issue this sensitive and important a blue ribbon panel can help establish a baseline of facts and set the terms of debate in a manner that hopefully elevate the level of discussion. This will help ensure that the country’s best interests – as opposed to those of a given political party – will be the first and foremost criteria of evaluation. In principal this should make it harder for the NDP and those like Michael Byers who advise them, to continue to call for a unilateral withdrawal without discussing the full consequences of such a choice.

In short, if the panel (John Manley, Pamela Wallin, Derek Burney, Paul Tellier and Jake Epp) does its job it can help ensure that Canadians make the best choice for Canada.

John_ManleyThe bad news is that Liberals are in a huff about the fact that John Manley’s appointment as the head of this panel insulates the conservative from a sticky issue in the lead up to an election. I can understand how one would lament the loss of a potential “wedge issue” that might have undermined Conservative support, especially in Quebec. But veiled attacks on Manley paint the party in a bad light. And for good reason. Liberals should be proud of Manley – or any Canadian – who attempts to bring coherence, clarity and a basic level of consensus to a debate of national importance.

Liberals are only mad at Manley because they know that although this commission shows the Conservatives are desperate (they are), it also exposes the shallowness of their own policy on the issue. And let’s be clear, the Liberals don’t have a coherent policy on Afghanistan. The current Liberal position of pulling our troops out after 2009 simply plays off the public’s fears. It does nothing to address the actual goals of why Canada is in Afghanistan. It’s odd to watch the party that championed Human Security and R2P argue for getting the military out of a country where the previous government had a complete disrespect for human rights, marginalized women and generally terrorized its own population. Nor is the notion that “it’s somebody else’s turn” inspiring the public. Either a) this mission is important and so if no one else will do it, we must or b) it’s not, and we should get out (and, by the way, if this was the case why did you get us in in the first place?).

Moreover, let’s talk about the costs of leaving – there are people whose lives will be in significantly greater risk if Canada pulls out and the risks of Afghanistan becoming an operational centre for global terrorism are real. Conversely, let’s talk about the costs of staying – such as the fact that Afghanistan is going to be further destabilized this winter when the Americans start spraying Opium crops with pesticides. If this is the way the US is going to behave, maybe we should leave.

But this is the type of nuanced discussion neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives (it’s not worth mentioning the NDP) are willing to have. All that has happened is that the Conservatives realized that this superficial discussion would hurt them more and so they got smart.

So rather than getting mad at Manley Liberals should start coming up with a coherent policy on Afghanistan.

How we humbled the NYT

22 Replies

Taylor and I published this piece in the Tyee yesterday. In short, the newspapers are dying, and they have completely failed to understand the internet. Most importantly, they think they are above the rest of the online community… and so long as they act they way they won’t be above the community, they’ll be outside it.

It’s derived from a larger magazine styled piece on old and new media that we are looking for a home to publish. If anyone has any suggestions of a possible home I would be grateful for your ideas.

—

How We Educated the New York Times

A zillion clicks taught newspapers they aren’t in control.
Published: October 10, 2007

The New York Times made waves in the media world recently by dismantling its subscription paywall. As a result, anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can now read the entire paper online for free.

The failed paywall experiment of the New York Times is emblematic of the newspaper industry’s two-decade-old struggle to survive online. So long as the Internet is perceived as nothing more than a new tool for distributing the news to a passive audience — readers, citizen and the community more generally, will continue to tune out. For newspapers to survive, a more nuanced understanding of the online world is needed.

The key is grasping that the relationship between communities and their news has fundamentally changed.

You and I are in charge now

Prior to the Internet, people determined what was important by reading what newspaper editors thought was important. Today, people have a host of ways to determine what is important and to connect quickly with stories on those issues. Newspapers can shift their content, and advertising, online, but as long as they believe they are the arbiters of a community’s agenda, they will continue to struggle.

Online, people engage with news in two new ways, both of which deviate significantly from the traditional newspaper model.

First, algorithm-based aggregators, such as Google News and Del.icio.us, and human-run websites, such as National Newswatch and the Huffington Post, provide powerful alternatives to the traditional newspaper editor.

 

Aggregators, both human and algorithm-based, don’t care about content’s origins, only its relevance to readers. They ferret out the best content from across the web and deposit it on your computer screen. This begs the question: if you could read the best articles drawn from a pool of 100 authors (the approximate number of journalists at a daily newspaper) vs. a pool of 1.5 million posts (the amount of new content created online each day), which would you choose?But it is the second reason that should most concern newspapers. Younger readers don’t just use aggregators. They increasingly read articles found through links from blogs. Rather than roaming within a newspaper’s walled gardens, younger readers build their own media communities where a trusted network of bloggers guide them to interesting content. Online, bloggers are the new editors.

Take, for example, the relationship many Canadians have with the prominent blogger Andrew Potter. While most people have never met him in person, his readers know his perspectives and biases, and this personal connection creates a loyal following.

Antithetically, people are also drawn back because they are interested in the places Potter links to, virtually all of which direct readers away from the site he blogs for, Macleans.ca.

Share the good stuff

To most newspapers, the idea of directing traffic away from their news site remains an anathema. Newspaper websites contain virtually no external links. Ironically, this follows the design parameters of a Las Vegas casino — the goal is to get you in, and not let you leave. Does anyone really believe that all the news and perspectives relevant and important to a community can reside on a single website?

In this manner, newspapers are fighting the very thing that makes the Internet community compelling: its interconnectedness. Like Potter’s blog, the Internet’s best sites are attractive, not simply because their content is good, but rather because they link to content around the web. And if that content is compelling, readers keep coming back for more guidance.

People enjoy a sense of community, and democracy is strengthened when citizens are informed. The problem is, the New York Times, and virtually every traditional newspaper, fails to understand that a model has emerged that is far better at both delivering information and fostering community than the traditional news industries.

Bad neighbourhood?

Traditional media supporters will assert that these online communities are fragmented, in disagreement, full of scallywags, immature ranters, educated snobs and partisan hacks. And they’d be right. It’s messy and it’s imperfect. But then, so is the democratic community in which we live. The difference is, in an online community, everyone is telling us and directing us to issues and news items they believe are important.

The New York Times learned this lesson the hard way. After spending two years trying to wall its exclusive content off from the web, it discovered that rather than becoming more exclusive, it was becoming less relevant. Unable to link to its content, aggregators, bloggers and the online community more generally, simply stopped talking about them. Newspapers should heed this lesson. If newspapers want to transition into the online age — they’ll have to join this community, rather than seek to control it.