►
From YouTube: Pieter Hintjens - Our decentralized future
Description
Pieter Hintjens - Our decentralized future
[EuroPython 2014 Keynote]
[23 July 2014]
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.
A
So
good
morning,
it's
me
again
I'm
to
have
to
introduce
Peter
Hinton's.
Yes,
Ben
is
a
long-term
community
activist
and
on
many
fronts
he
fought
against
software
patents.
He
did
like
on
an
organization
level
and
apparently,
as
you
know,
it
also
succeeded,
and
he
is
also
the
main
one
of
the
main
guys
behind
0
and
Q,
both
developing
wise
and
designing
wise.
He
has
written
books
called
chyme
empire.
A
And
what
we're
doing
here
is
that
peter
is
going
to
give
some
give
some
input,
and
this
is
going
to
be
a
bit
of
a
different
format
than
the
keynotes
we
saw
in
the
last
days
in
that
you
are
invited
very
soon
to
walk
up
to
the
microphones
and
to
enter
a
discussion.
So
peter
has,
of
course,
a
lot
of
prepared
thoughts,
but
he's
very
happy
to
actually
enter
some
kind
of
more
interactive
discussion
and
please,
if
you,
when
we
do
that
and
try
to
restrain
yourself
to
something
like
30
seconds.
A
Think
of
it
like
a
tweet
or
something
like
this,
maybe
also
a
60
seconds.
Sometimes
you
want
to
present
something
more,
but
please
don't
go
over
that
and
Peter
is
going
to
repeat
what
he
understood
from
you,
then,
and
otherwise
I
think
we're
going
to
have
an
interesting
discussion
and
so
I
give
the
word
to
Peter.
Thank.
B
You,
however,
thank
you
very
much
you're
a
Python.
You
guys
are
awesome,
so
I'm
the
0
mq
guy,
as
they
call
me,
we
it's
a
tough
community,
I
founded
it,
but
they,
you
know,
I
made
a
bad
patch
and
I
got
this
the
other
day.
So
you
know
it's
off.
Actually
this
came
from
a
couple
of
Ruby
guys
who
were
know.
I
came
to
Europe
Python,
it's
a
funny
community.
B
The
Syrian
community
I've
done
many
community
projects,
many
and
it's
the
first
one
large
community
project,
where
there's
no
fighting
and
no
arguing
and
people
will
argue
with
me
a
little
bit,
but
in
zero
and
pew
community.
If
you
look
at
the
mailing
list,
you
won't
find
flame
wars.
You
won't
find
people
with
any
kind
of
emotional
anxiety,
or
this
is
basically
very
pragmatic,
straightforward
walking
through
what
happens-
and
this
is
this-
is
very
unusual
in
a
in
a
large
project.
B
0
mq
is
actually
a
project
of
projects.
I,
looked
at
the
github
organization,
they're
about
675
projects
that
use
0
mq
no
title
somewhere
in
github
is
about
I,
think
15
year
organizers,
it's
about
half
a
million
lines
of
code
with
about
400
contributors.
Ok,
it's
been
about
seven
years.
Building
this
up,
I'll,
give
you
these
figures
just
to
tell
you
how
big
it
is
and
how
active
it
is.
B
My
one
of
my
projects
is
a
seed
binding
that
has
another
ten
languages
on
top
that
use
it
and
wrap
it
and
links
d-q,
ooc,
o
camel
CL,
of
course,
ruby
bindings.
On
top,
they
can
never
agree
those
guys
and
the
Python
binding
on
top
of
that
and
the
Cora
serum
cue
library
is
about
33,000
lines
of
code.
So
it's
about
15,
17
percent
of
the
whole
project.
B
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
do
IRC
meetings.
We
barely
have
meetups
anymore
I
used
to
organize
these
meetups.
You
know
like
two
three
weekends.
Where
we
discuss
what
come
in
the
next
version
we
stopped
doing
all
of
that
now
and
then
we
have.
You
know
we
have
beer,
that's
about
it.
B
B
And
you've
been
being
very
good
with
them.
I
was
I,
was
kind
of
a
bit
afraid
what
would
happen,
but
they've
been
they've
been
good
thanks
for
that.
So
this.
This
is
a
very
strange
community
unusual
in
many
ways,
and
it's
not
accidental.
Now.
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.
B
Now
what
we
do
is
we
solve
problems
and
all
of
our
problems
somehow
came
from
centralization,
and
so
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
and
creating
with
our
brain,
something
miraculous
in
you,
and
that
requires
coercion
that
requires
power
requires
control,
and
yet
the
natural
world,
our
economies
are
everything
we
live
in
is
about
decentralization,
giving
up
control.
B
B
We
came
from
before
was
a
very
conventional
single-threaded,
highly
locked,
shared
state,
very
serial,
not
very
much
concurrently,
concurrently,
going
on
with
no
message
passing
process
run
by
a
few
guys
and
that's
the
process
that
you
will
know
from
most
of
your
work
and
most
of
your
projects,
a
very
planned
system,
possibly
a
hierarchy
with
a
very
clear
flow
of
power
from
top
to
bottom
flow,
over
orders
and
executions.
Most
of
you
in
companies
you
work
in
will
recognize.
B
Now,
let's
look
at
the
future
of
computing.
Specifically,
we
come
from
a
past
where
computers
are
very,
very
expensive.
We
all
remember
IBM's
famous
market
study
of
50
mainframes
as
a
global
market.
We
go
to
a
future
where
computers
are
dirt
cheap,
they
literally
cost
less
than
dirt,
and
there's
trillions
of
them
and
every
year
the
fall.
B
You
know
the
price
falls
and
a
number
of
computers,
Rises,
and
so
the
future
of
computing
is
distributed,
whether
you
like
it
or
not,
and
if,
as
engineers,
we
can't
build
scalable
distributed
software,
we
don't
have
a
job
in
five
or
ten
or
twenty
years
time.
It's
simply
a
matter
of
time
not
of
if
but
of
when.
B
B
The
answer
apparently-
and
this
is
my
best
experience-
is
it's
kind
of
weird.
The
answer
is
we
can't
actually
build
successful
systems.
We
can
only
grow
them.
If
you
look
at
the
examples
that
we
have
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
is
the
internet?
B
It's
in
a
box
on
my
table,
don't
break
it
alright,
and
this
mysterious
thing
it
defines
our
lives
and
is
built
by
nobody
or
everybody
has
grown
over
time.
Can
anyone
tell
me
what
the
Internet
actually
is?
Someone
give
me
a
one-line
or
tweet
for
the
Internet?
Let's
have
our
first
volunteer
the
first
person
to
give
this
a
decent
answer,
wins
this
book
right
now.
Okay
and
this
book
is
worth
it
the
microphone.
Is
there,
sir,
you
have
to
move
the
microphone
someone.
What
is
the
Internet,
a
network
of
autonomous
networks?
B
B
B
B
A
substrate
I
will
make
it
easy.
I'll
just
give
you
the
answer
and
keep
the
poop
for
myself
I.
Like
my
own
books,
the
Internet
is
a
stack
of
protocols.
Okay,
it's
very
dry
and
academic
and
legal
issue.
Whatever
RFC's
are
the
internet.
The
internet
are
is
a
stack
of
RFC's.
We
have
now
thousands
of
RFC's.
It
used
to
be
only
a
handful
of
you.
Doesn't
the
very
first
RFC
RFC
0:01
I
believe
is
an
RFC
for
writing
RFC's
or
got
very
close,
maybe
number
two
that
is
the
internet.
It's
a
bunch
of
contracts.
B
B
Now
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
wasn't
like
there
was
nothing
and
then
some
guys
in
the
garage
said
whoo.
Let's
make
some
networking
come
on.
The
biggest
companies
in
the
world
had
spent
billions
in
making
networks,
and
this
went
on
as
long
as
who
was
still
you
guys
are
all
very
young,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
but
I.
B
Remember
1995
and
I
remember
windows
95,
which
came
out
without
networking,
and
then
they
brought
networking
and
they
called
it
MSN
1.0,
and
that
was
Microsoft's
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.
One
did
not
talk
the
Internet
and
we
had
a
o
L.
We
had
IBM
with
their
Lu
6.2
and
all
this
rubbish.
It
wasn't
that
the
internet
came
in
it
in
a
void.
B
So
we're
talking
here
about
very
significant
competitive
advantage
and
everybody
whose
job
it
was
to
build
lu,
6.2
bridges
had
to
either
learn
something
else
or
go
on
a
retirement
all
right.
There
was
no
future
in
IBM
networking
or
even
in
Novell
networking
in
the
end,
and
certainly
not
in
MSN
and
lol.
Only
because
they
gave
away
lots
of
free,
CDs
and
spammed
us
all
four
years
and
the
internet,
the
stupid
little
RFC's
became
world
power,
they
became
a
superpower
and
yet
nobody,
nobody
really
invested
in
that
huge
amount
of
money.
B
There
was
no
one
backing
it.
There
was
no,
you
know,
Steve
Jobs
or
Bill
Gates
behind
that
that
should
demonstrate
you,
the
power
of
the
market
when
it's
enabled
by
accurate
contracts,
which
is
what
RFC's
are
okay,
and
so
we've
all
lived
through
this
growth
of
this
superpower,
technology
grown
by
competition
and
collaboration
with
actually
very
few
fights
and
arguments
most
of
the
fights
and
arguments
were
from
the
losers
when
they
discovered
they
couldn't
hijack
the
process.
Oh,
you
can't
use
our
patented
email.
Oh
damn!
Oh,
we
can't
capture
this
in
this.
B
Most
of
the
actual
honest
work
was
done,
any
fighting
argument
at
all,
and
so
we
all
know
this,
but
we
kind
of
ignore
it
and
we
come
back
to
the
old
model
of
trying
to
make
stuff
by
power
right.
It's
very
ironic
how
we
can,
in
our
minds,
have
these
two
completely
in
a
contradictory
models
operation.
We
all
depend
on
the
one,
yet
we
all
make
the
other,
and
so
let
me
throw
you
one
of
these.
A
little
bit
argumentative
controversial
statements,
I'd
like
to
make
about
the
nature
of
good
software.
B
Now
all
those
IBM
engineers
and
even
most
the
Microsoft
engineers
in
the
certain
novel
engineers
all
made
good
software.
There
were
all
very
good
programmers.
They
were
all
you
know
highly
selected
good
degrees
in
computer
science.
They
whole
made
fantastic.
You
know,
scalable,
algorithms
and
everything
else
perfect.
All
their
stuff
was
thrown
out
right
as
it's
most
software.
So
what
defines
good
software
and
I'll
argue
that
most
of
us
in
our
industry
have
a
completely
wrong
understanding
of
that.
It's
one
of
our
biggest
weaknesses
that
we
do
not
understand
what
quality
is
in
software.
B
We
fundamentally
got
it
wrong
and
that
wrong
assumption
drives
us
to
extraordinary
mistakes.
A
lot
of
what
we
did
in
the
0m
community
was
to
correct
that
big
misunderstanding.
What
I
consider
to
be
a
big
misunderstanding
about
software
quality,
and
so
the
old
model
of
collaboration
and
0
mq
community
was
I
will
explain
how
it
worked.
There
was
a
guy
who's
who
was
the
the
main
author.
He
was
the
main
draw
author.
He
would
write
code,
be
very
clever,
a
genius
man.
B
There
was
a
friend
of
his
who
was
a
maintainer
and
he
could
understand
getting
branches
and
merges
and
packages
and
make
files.
An
auto
confidant
is
very
complex
stuff,
and
he
could
talk
to
this
man
here
they
would.
The
brains
would
synchronize
with
his
amazing
shared
state
which
involved
lots
of
beer
and
meetings
in
strange
locations,
and
these
two
were
a
very
good
team
made
amazingly
good
software,
which
was
very
fast
and
didn't
crash
and
was
good.
B
It
was
amazing,
and
then
there's
all
these
other
guys
here
who
were
like
using
it
and
contributing
it,
but
the
contributions
had
to
go
by
a
mailing
list
to
one
of
these
two
guys
here.
Who
would
then
look
at
the
meaningless
patches
and
say
we
don't
like
your
patch.
We
don't
agree
with
your
patch.
We
think
your
patch
is
mm,
we
don't
like
it
and
you
know
it's.
Basically,
it's
our
baby,
so
you
know
we
don't
like
it.
B
Oh
well
think
about
it,
your
codes,
badly
indented,
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
one
ever
knew
what
the
basis
was
for
a
decision.
The
users
had
no
idea
and
I.
Think
after
I
had
like
my
fourth
or
fifth
patch
rejected
and
I'm
like.
Why
is
my
stuff
being
rejected?
I'm
gonna
contribute
here,
I
mean
of
course,
I
felt
very
hurt.
B
So
I
cuddled
my
babies
and
said
this
is
terrible,
but
what
I
really
felt
was
like
if
I'm
getting
my
stuff
rejected?
What
about
other
people
this
sucks-
and
this
was
my
money
in
the
table,
so
I
was
kind
of
annoyed
as
well
as
a
businessman
and
that
wasn't
the
worst
part.
The
worst
part
was
that
what
came
out
of
this
process
was
really
rubbish
and
it
was
really
bad.
It
was.
It
was
actually.
It
was
actually
sad.
We
took
us
like
six
months
to
make
a
stable
release.
B
We
would
spend
six
months
just
removing
bugs
from
raw
code
and
we
would
throw
the
stuff
at
users
who
would
say:
oh,
it's
better
than
being
stabbed
in
the
eye
with
a
fork,
but
it's
really
it's
really.
Why
is
this
stuff,
so
so
raw?
Why
is
it
so
immature?
Why
is
it
so?
You
know
so
much
untested
code
in
this
god
base,
because
this
guy
wrote
code.
He
was
a
very
good
engineer.
B
He
liked
to
write
code
engineers
write
code
and,
as
we
went
through
this
kind
of
process
of
maturing
the
codebase,
we
discovered
that
a
lot
of
the
code
that
was
in
there
was
never
actually
used.
It
was
written
for
no
reason,
except
with
the
person
who
wrote
it
thought
in
his
opinion
that
people
might
need
it
one
day
or
it
was
fun
to
write
it
or
he
absolutely
had
to
make.
He
was
convinced
that
he
had
to
make
it,
but
he
was
wrong.
B
That's
why
nobody
uses
them
today,
it's
kind
of
obvious
and
now
over
time,
we've
gotten
packages
and
designs
that
have
emerged
which
are
more
and
more
and
more
accurate.
That's
why
people
are
using
them,
and
the
current
process
is
very
strange.
Basically,
you
you
send
a
pull
request
to
master
and
I'll,
merge
it,
and
that's
it.
B
It's
really
that
simple.
It's
not
quite
that
simple,
there's
a
little
bit
of
filtering
of
insanity,
but
not
much,
and
even
insanity
I
tend
to
welcome
and
embrace
it
and
say
if
you're
really
crazy
enough
to
send
me
a
compliment.
St.
Paul
requests,
I
kind
of
like
your
your
character
come
and
join
us.
You
know
it's
always
good
to
have
diversity.
People
who
agree
with
me
aren't
very
useful
to
me
in
my
projects.
People
who
argue
with
me
are
always
more
valuable.
B
The
law
was
challenged,
my
perspective
and
often
they'll,
be
right
and
I'll
be
wrong.
In
fact,
and
maybe
they're
patch
isn't
the
right
patch,
but
their
presence
is
the
right
presence,
and
now
you
get
to
seeing
the
software
not
as
a
quality
in
terms
of
how
fast
or
how
beautiful,
but
in
terms
of
how
accurate
and
how
relevant,
which
is
a
complete,
different
thing
right.
One
person
or
a
small
team
can
write
very
high
quality
software
in
terms
of
its
technical
characteristics,
but
they
are
uncompensated.
B
Writing
software
that
is
relevant
to
a
broad
market
and
in
fact
only
the
market
can
write
that
software
and
so
to
make
successful
large
systems.
You
need
to
bring
in
successfully
the
large
market
to
make
those
systems
ok,
and
so,
when
you're
building
software,
which
has
to
be
distributed,
which,
as
I
explained
the
future,
does
demand
you
need
to
bring
in
communities
that
are
distributed.
Otherwise,
you
can't
build
those
systems,
no
one's
working
with
me
here,
the
microphones
are
there.
I
should
maybe
give
some
diplomatic
pauses
and
then
people
just
stand
up
and.
B
Okay,
any
time
you
like
just
raise
your
hands
and
say
Peter
this
stuff,
your
thing
is
is
is
ludicrous.
You
know
you've
heard
of
Conway's
law.
Conway's
law
is
coming
popular.
It
says
that
as
an
organization,
we
build
systems
that
mirror
our
communication
patterns
in
the
organization.
If
we
are
a
top-down
hierarchy
with
very
coercive
use
of
power
and
a
very
one-way
learning
where
you
learn
at
university,
you
apply
in
your
job
and
that's
it.
Then.
The
software
we
make
will
look
like
that.
A
You
described
with
the
process
with
0
mq.
That
sounds
like
a
coding
wiki
right,
so
basically
people
contribute
code
and
you
look
at
it
and
if
it
doesn't
look
like
somewhat
too
crazy
or
so
you
murdered,
so
how?
How
do
you
make
sure
that
if
you
release
not
make
sure
right?
What
is
the
experience,
then,
when
you
release
something
in
terms
of
breakage?
How
do
you
deal
with
tests,
and
things
like
this
like
these
are
practical
concerns.
Ok,.
B
So
the
question
is:
how
do
you
come
back
to
quality
in
a
certain
level?
What
are
what
is
your
testable
status
for
your
deliverable,
I'll
answer?
The
question:
I
will
first
I'll
first
make
a
comments
about
what
happened
when
we
moved
to
word
or
process.
It
was
about
two
years
ago,
I
believe
two
and
a
half
years
ago,
and
actually
my
model
when
they
explained
to
people
was
Wikipedia.
B
I
said
I
want
to
get
as
close
as
I
can
to
Wikipedia
and
people
said
Peter
you're,
insane
and
I'm
like
I
might
be
insane,
but
I
know
what
I'm
talking
about
with
this
here.
My
goal
is
to
bring
in
the
most
possible
contributors
and
give
them
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
six-month
cycles.
I
want
six-hour
cycles
or
six-minute
cycles,
and
making
mistakes
is
fine.
B
It's
one
of
these
fallacies
of
distributed
computing
is
that
the
world
is
perfect,
but
physics
is
not
perfect.
There's
always
lag.
There's
these
vulnerabilities
things
break
things,
disappear,
people
make
mistakes,
people
make
big
and
small
mistakes,
and
the
trick
is
to
let
people
make
mistakes,
to
learn
from
them,
not
to
punish
them
and
let
them
or
others,
detect
and
fix
those
mistakes
very
rapidly.
B
B
It's
never
had
any
real
crisis,
and
that's
because,
although
you
can
vandalize
any
page,
you
can
also
fix
any
vandalization
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
and
today.
Most
of
my
work
is
always
based
off
master
on
many
projects
on
a
zero
MP
community.
We
don't
use
the
disable
releases
anymore.
B
B
What
we
do
is
we
let
the
users
of
course
contribute
test
cases
and
the
test
cases
are
a
contract
and
when
we
build-
and
we
have
Travis
CI
running
on
this
all
the
time,
if
you,
if
you,
if
you
make
a
change
that
breaks
the
test,
it
shows
right
away
in
red.
There's
an
error.
This
stuff
is
broken,
that's
not
a
fatal
mistake,
it's
just
a
mistake.
Somebody
can
fix
it,
but
it
shows
right
away.
So
the
thing
about
contracts,
contracts
by
themselves
aren't
enough.
B
The
contracts
must
be
testable
and
the
faster
and
the
most
awesome,
the
more
automatic
that
can
be
tested
the
better.
This
is
why
RFC's
that
our
protocols
can
be
tested
you
if
you
have
a
web
server
and
you
write
it
and
it
doesn't
perform.
You
can
test
that
with
web
clients.
People
do
this
all
the
time.
B
That's
how
you,
how
you
check
it
so
every
patch
goes
on
master
gets
committed
or
merged
tests
get
run
if
it's
broken
master,
we
know
about
it
and
the
test
cases
have
grown
and
grown
and
grown
and
grown
as
as
they
were
applied
systematically
as
a
quality
measure.
They
simply
grew
to
cover
everything,
and
now
they
cover
the
whole
API
and,
and
that
seems
to
work
very
well.
I
think
your
first
offer.
C
Technically
I
would
agree
to
almost
everything
you
said,
but
somehow
I
thought
I.
Are
you
doing
a
parody?
So
because
we
are
here
on
open
source
conference,
where
we
have
a
dictator
for
life,
chef
lifetime
and
the
same
with
Linux
or
Linux?
It's
the
first
mr.
tobert
was
very
dominant
in
the
first
phase.
F
C
Maybe
this
dominance
with
Linux
or
even
now,
with
spice
and
is
somehow
not
the
best
I
told
him.
I
talked
to
people
who
said
that
he
was
did
not
accept
something
whatever,
and
the
third
argument
is:
Wikipedia
is
not
a
free
saying
the
dictator,
you
can
memorize
pages
and
they
are
corrected,
but
the
problem
is
some
political
pages
in
the
hand
of
less
left-wing
people
who
have
non
democratic
views,
especially
there
against
Nazis.
That
means
against
all
Germans.
We
have
a
different
opinion
that
left-wing
people,
so
there's
no
democracy.
B
So,
let's
take
these
points
one
by
one.
So
the
first
point
is
about
the
role
of
a
benevolent
dictator
in
a
project
open-source
project.
The
second
question
is
about
controversy,
controversy
in
in
in
knowledge
and
propaganda,
and
so
on.
Okay,
I'll.
Take
the
second
point.
First,
the
thing
about
software
is
that
you
don't
really
have
controversy
in
in
perspective
in
points
of
view,
we're
not
doing
journalism
luckily
and
I.
Think
with
Wikipedia.
There
is
this
kind
of
it
covers
a
very
broad
scale.
It
does
cover
very
old.
B
If
you,
if
you're,
trying
to
get
a
single
point
of
view,
you
cannot
let
those
in
those
pages,
however,
that
controversy
has
to
go
somewhere
may
as
well.
Happen
may
as
well
be
documented
and
may
as
well
be
captured
in
some
place
in
Wikipedia
serves
for
that
purpose.
It
is
a
real
controversy,
let
it
be
documented
what
we
have
in
the
in
open
source
community
when
we
have
controversy
is
people,
they
fork
projects
and
they
make
competing
projects.
So
we
let
people
make
5
rocket
packages
doing
the
same
thing.
B
If
they're
arguing
about
the
approach
and
then
the
customers
can
choose
and
effectively
you
get
to
the
market.
Saying
I
prefer
that
perspective
I
prefer
that
point
of
view
and
that's
fine,
so
we
try
to.
Of
course
we
don't
say
people
should
have
one
point
of
view
or
there
should
be
one
single
way
of
doing
things
or
thinking
about
things
when
they
start.
B
When
there's
competition
of
ideas
and
when
there's
conflict,
let
the
market
decide
make
many
and
keep
all
the
freedom
to
create
around
that,
and
now
you
come
to
the
role
of
the
dictator,
now
I'm,
probably
the
largest
contributor
to
0
mq
I'm,
still
programming
all
the
time,
but
I'm
not
really
the
one
who
wrote
it.
There
was
a
team
that
wrote
it
mostly
martensitic
wrote
the
first,
the
first
generations
of
it.
B
My
role
is
mostly
been
lawyer.
It's
mostly
been
writing
RFC's
and
so
problems
problem
solving.
So
mostly
what
I've
done
over
the
years
is
use
it
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
no
technical
vision.
B
If
I
do
I
put
it
away,
it's
mostly
junk
when
I've
made
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,
I'm
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
Holger
has
something
on.
Oh
one
more
question,
sir
go
for
it.
Hi
is.
E
So
it's
a
very
bottom
up,
rather
than
top-down
way
of
doing
organizing
things.
My
question,
then,
is:
did
that
outlook
and
perhaps
I'm
wrong
in
putting
that
outlook
on
you
did
that
outlook
emerge
from
the
bottom?
Or
did
that
start?
Because
you
thought,
because
that's
already
an
existing
perspective,
that
you
have
and
the
way
0nq
has
has
developed
and
in
the
way
that
you've
described
in
terms
of
the
way
the
project
is
organized.
Is
that
more
a
reflection
of
you
in
your
your
outlook
or
the
group's
outlook
I.
B
Think
the
I
think
in
the
terms
of
anarchy,
is
what
you
call
a
philosophical
Anarchy
where
there
is
Authority,
but
anyone
can
choose
the
authority
they
like
best.
So
you
could
model
this
in
terms
of
you
do
have
countries
and
governments,
but
you
could
move
to
any
country
you
like
and
they're
infinitely
big
and
if
you
don't
like
the
government
and
attack
systems
and
the
infrastructure
move
somewhere
else,
so
there
is
Authority
and
there
has
to
be
Authority.
B
The
reason
is,
if
you're,
trying
to
work
with
contracts
and
base
your
collaboration
around
contracts
when
there's
conflict.
When
someone
people
cheat
and
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
system
which
doesn't
take
into
account
that
you
have
a
small
percentage
of
determined
cheats,
determined
cheats,
people
who
are
either
predisposed
to
always
cheating,
maybe
they're,
psychopathic
by
nature,
and
they
will
always
cheat
out
of
out
of
born
talent
or
they
will
be
opportunistic.
B
Cheats
who
see
money
on
the
table
and
who
say
I
can
steal
the
money
now
I'll
put
my
morals
aside
for
a
few
a
few
days
and
cheat
those
people
will
be
present
and
they
will
do
great
damage
to
communities
like
really
really
serious
damage
and
I've
been
in
communities.
Large
communities,
which
were
torn
apart
by
a
few
cheats,
literally
destroyed
the
work
of
thousands
of
people,
and
it's
it's
a
terrible
thing
to
see,
and
one
of
those
was
like
the
in
our
anti
patent
fight.
B
The
ffiii,
which
I
was
president
of
and
I,
was
trying
to
run
this
organization
by
consensus,
and
there
were
a
few
guys
in
organization
who
were
determined
to
cheat
and
because
I
didn't
really
have
the
moral
authority
of
being
the
founder,
I
couldn't
tell
them
to
stop
and
I
couldn't
convince
them
to
stop
and
it
told
organization
in
two
pieces.
It
was
the
terrible
trouble
thing
so
I'm,
very
pragmatic
about
identifying
sources
of
conflict
and
sources
of
damage
to
other
people's
work
and
stopping
that
by
any
means
necessary,
including
real
violence.
B
If
I
have
to
I'll,
be
very
brutal
to
people.
I
consider
to
be
a
threat
to
people
I
consider
to
be
valuable
to
each
other
right.
So
it's
not
Anika's
him
in
a
sense
of
hey.
Let's
all
do
what
we
like
that
doesn't
work
in
my
experience,
but
the
authority
is
there
to
protect
not
to
not
to
attack
and
it's
there
to
protect
the
work
of
the
collective.
B
The
book
came
out
of
my
work
in
politics
and
my
work
to
organize
people
for
politics
and
I
was
trying
to
explain
this
to
others
how
to
organize
and
how
to
build
communities
for
political
ends
and
my
sister
who's
who's,
a
professor
into
the
co
sciences:
oh
you're,
a
Marxist
ideology
or
Marxist
I'm,
not
a
Marxist
I'm,
a
free-market.
You
know
on
the
and,
if
I'm,
a
free,
Marcus
I'm,
an
Adam
Smith's,
you
know
I
believe
in
the
free
market,
in
the
beauty
of
the
market.
B
She's
like
oh
you're,
a
Marxist
yeah,
my
brother's,
a
Marxist,
okay
I'm,
a
Marxist,
sir
I
didn't
grow
up
to
be
a
Marxist
I.
Consider
myself
a
right-wing
capitalist
I'm,
a
businessman
like
to
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
market
with
good
rules
and
with
you
know,
good
authority
and
will
come
to
certain
forms
of
anarchism.
G
It's
funny
that
you
just
mentioned
that
you
believe
in
the
aaron
smith
theory,
the
but
invisible
and
because
I
think
what
you're
missing
in
your
view,
is
that's
behind
power.
There
is
people
and
I
want
to
ask
how
many
woman
is
in
this
room
right
now,
because
we
have
to
fight
our
way
in
IT
and
we
have
to
justify.
B
G
I
think
you
are
missing
that
in
this
room
there
are
many
male
white
for
most
and
that
behind
power
there
is
people,
and
there
is
this.
Maybe
you
think
that
you
don't
have
any
oriented
view
or
stuff
like
that,
but
you
you
are
in
the
fact
you
oriented
and
when
you
choose
to
have
people
like
doing
funny
codes,
you
choose
to
have
this
guy,
but
maybe
it's
afraid
for
others.
So
maybe
you
are
missing
that
behind
powers,
there's
people
so.
B
Thank
you
for
your
question,
I
guess.
To
paraphrase
what
you're
asking
for
is
how
this
kind
of
I
guess
a
fairly
pragmatic
process
takes
two
into
account:
diversity,
whether
it
be
diversity
of
origin
or
gender
or
religion
or
culture,
whatever
I'm
not
going
to
talk
about
women
in
software,
that's
a
different
issue
and
I
thought
my
expertise.
I'm
a
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
super
hilly
as
much
as
it
was
English.
B
B
Don't
know
how
successful
it's
been,
but
a
lot
of
the
the
bias
that
people
might
have
towards
a
contributor
because
they
know
who
they
are
you're.
My
friend
therefore
I,
like
your
patches,
I,
don't
know
you
are
therefore
our
objective
we've
taken
away.
If
you
look
at
our
process,
there
is
no
basis
for
discrimination
in
the
process.
B
However,
what
I've
also
noticed
is
that
our
contributors
are
more
and
more
dominantly
male,
not
from
any
one
country
we're
very
around
the
world
very
geographically
diverse,
but
I
believe
the
process
is
a
fairly
brutal
process
in
certain
ways,
fairly
competitive
and
may
have
a
certain
communication
pattern
that
feels
pretty
masculine.
That's
possible
is
the
case
and
I'm
happy
to
get
patches
and
changes
and
suggestions
when
it
comes
to
the
people
in
the
the
invisible
hand
in
the
market.
B
What
I
think
is
is
is
observable,
but
I
think
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
we
can
do
many
different
things
and
work
together
and
having
different
talents
in
our
minds
makes
us
valuable
right.
B
Let's
just
a
difference
is
valuable
differences.
What
makes
us
valuable
as
individuals
being
different
for
the
people
is
a
valuable
thing.
It
should
be
a
valuable
thing
if
we
are
free
to
use
that
difference
to
trade,
to
connect
people,
if
there's
no
barriers
to
communication
or
barriers
to
moving
to
different
place
to
work
whatever,
but
more
than
that,
I
can't
really
I
can't
really
give
you.
G
B
Mean
I'm
by
course,
I'm
biased,
I,
know
I'm,
biased
by
definition,
but
I
can't
see
my
own
bias.
I
couldn't
tell
you
where
it
is.
I
feel
that
I
grew
up
in
I.
Have
four
sisters
and
I
grew
up
in
a
family
where
we
were.
We
were,
you
know,
but
of
course
I'm
biased,
but
everybody
in
this
room
is
biased
in
different
ways
that
no
one
on
earth
is
not
biased
by
their
own
perception
of
the
world
and
I.
Don't
even
I
said
spec
the
gender
bias
isn't
even
the
largest
bias.
We
have
age
bias.
B
We
have
language,
buyers
have
so
many
biases,
so
you
know
that's
that's
kind
of
reality.
We
live
in
I,
don't
know
how
to
make
that
into.
You
know
more
happiness
for
people,
except
to
make
more
doors,
to
open
a
more
opportunity
for
people
to
contribute
in
different
ways
yeah.
But
thank
you
for
that
question.
Okay,.
B
F
My
question,
you
said
you
thought
positively
about
the
market
deciding
about
their
own
software
and
not
one
person
making
all
the
decisions.
I
want
to
cut
a
I
would
say
a
quote
from
the
book:
the
shallows,
the
writer,
the
system,
the
Dahmer,
the
user.
You
think
when
the
people
decide
about
their
software,
will
they
always
choose
the
best
of
software
for
their
own
benefit?
What's.
B
Interesting
about
what
we're
talking
about
the
ability
of
the
market
to
make
decisions?
Yes,
and
what
I
think
is
most
interesting
is
not
so
much
about
the
solution
for
a
particular
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
come
back
to
quality
and
software
is
choosing
the
right
problems
and
solving
the
right
problems
and
solving
the
biggest
problems.
First,
now,
once
you've
identified
the
right
problem
to
solve.
B
Of
course,
you
can
throw
away
solutions,
come
with
new
solutions
and
what
we
really
depend
on
on
our
community,
for
what
we.
What
we
bet
on
the
community
is
to
identify
the
right
problems
in
the
biggest
problems
and
those
we
solve,
and
then
the
solutions
can
come
and
go
over
time,
their
basic,
much
trash
right.
B
F
B
For
example,
if
ease
of
is
more
important
in
performance,
that's
that's
a
valid
choice.
I
mean
everyone
is
making
a
bet
on
their
own
when
they
choose
software,
they're
betting,
their
time
and
money
on
that,
and
of
course,
that's
valid,
you
can't
say
no,
no
I
know
better
than
you,
but
that's
your
business,
but
I
know
better
than
you
that
that's
that
doesn't
work.
F
B
The
question
is
whether
this
is
a
different
management:
styles,
yes
or
no,
and
whether
it's
a
question
of
size
or
not,
there
is
a
management
consultant
a
long
time
ago,
a
guy
called
Argyris.
He
has
two
models,
you
can
research,
this
Argyris
model,
one
Argyris
model
two
and
it's
worth
reading
about,
and
this
is
exactly
the
the
dichotomy
mortal
one
is
a
top-down
learning
process.
You
learn,
University,
you
learn
in
workshops.
You
apply
in
your
job.
B
The
model
two
is
a
circular
system
where
you
learn
as
you
work,
and
you
apply
that
all
the
way
around
it's
not
about
scale,
though
those
models
apply,
whether
you're
a
team
of
five
or
5,000.
Both
models,
they're
quite
inconsistent.
You
can't
make
a
shift
from
one
to
the
other
very
easily.
They
they're
competing
models,
but
there
are
two
management:
styles,
yes,
most
definitely,
and
this
it's
not
my
invention,
I
mean
no
one
invents
anything.
We
just
reuse
stuff,
where
we
discover
the
stuff
that
people
have
been
doing
for
a
long
time.
B
There
are
companies
which
operate
and
model
to
very
successfully
an
internally.
They
are
very
fluid
and
they
look
very
strange,
but
they're
very
successful
and
most
companies
still
operating
model,
one
okay,
but
it's
not
about
size
when
I
began,
making
the
community
with
zmq
the
goal
was
from
the
very
beginning
was
to
build
this
kind
of
a
learning
you
know,
building
by
learning,
rather
than
building
by
dogma
and
by
design
just
to.
D
Seconds
we
are
half
contains
here
that
decentralized
organization
works,
I
mean
gidget
decentralized.
We
do
have
contracts
through
conflicts,
the
kind
of
things
well
Alf
were
there.
I
was
listening
to
you
and
was
thinking
this
guy
needs
to
go
to
this
big
economic
forum
in
the
arc,
where
Bill
Gates
used
to
go
and
all
the
big
leaders.
Is
it
good
because
people
in
power
right
now
they
need
to
hear
you
Ellen.