Just an addition to the previous post, What happened to the founding members of PPS? After finishing it, I came across this Wiki page that describes the foundation of Project Petaling Street.
It seems like the Wiki died a quick death though, as it has not been updated since July 13, 2003, about a month after PPS started.
Based on the Wiki, I left out two founders, who were no longer on the sidebar by the time the site was archived by the Wayback Machine. Or maybe they were never on it, I dunno.
• Ditesh Kumar of Gathani.org. A Tech/Personal blog. It’s no longer online, but there’s an archived version from June 19, 2003. It mentions PPS on June 12.
• Mohan Raj of Codeworks. A very short lived tech blog – only seven posts in all, and it has not been updated since July 16, 2003.
An interesting thing for me is the clear ‘Open Source’ format of the Wiki. A lot of the literature on “Internet culture’ seems to take Free/Libre Open Source Software (aka FLOSS) as a model of online interaction. For example, Raymond’s classic The Cathedral and the Bazaar, or Ghosh’s Cooking pot markets… - these have been very effectively critiqued by the anthropologist Kelty in Hau to Do Things with Words.
Although they are not directly comparable, blogs and FLOSS do share a few things though, I think: the importance of attributing sources, and the open and shared nature of the final product. A key difference, though, is that a blog belongs to one person only, whereas OS software belongs to everyone (or no one). PPS seemed to sit in the middle a bit - conceived of as a 'community' resource, it also was a website owned and run by one person. Perhaps because of this, later on, there were disagreements in 2004 and in 2005 about ‘Who owns PPS?’
This debate seems to owe something to the FLOSS ethos, and there seemed to be three stances:
1. Aizuddin pays for and runs the site, so he can do what he wants with it ultimately.
2. Aizuddin may want to run it the way he wants, but why do some get their RSS feeds permanently in the sidebar?
3. It’s a community service, and should be run for all bloggers, by some sort of collective process.
Finally, the founders in the sidebar lost their space, but Aizuddin has kept sole control over it. Basically, he owns it. It reminds me of another point that Kelty made (same source as mentioned above): that the guarantee of the open software is done by, in the last instance, using the (offline) regime of private property to uphold the ability to prevent anyone from appropriating the software and excluding others – “Free Software is protected intellectual property that anyone can use.” (2002:12); this point has recently been tested legally in the US and "Advocates of open source software have hailed a court ruling protecting its use even though it is given away free" (BBC)
"The document that will track this evolution is the very same one you are reading RIGHT NOW. It is intended to be a dynamic document that will be updated as PPS evolves."
It seems like the Wiki died a quick death though, as it has not been updated since July 13, 2003, about a month after PPS started.
Based on the Wiki, I left out two founders, who were no longer on the sidebar by the time the site was archived by the Wayback Machine. Or maybe they were never on it, I dunno.
• Ditesh Kumar of Gathani.org. A Tech/Personal blog. It’s no longer online, but there’s an archived version from June 19, 2003. It mentions PPS on June 12.
• Mohan Raj of Codeworks. A very short lived tech blog – only seven posts in all, and it has not been updated since July 16, 2003.
An interesting thing for me is the clear ‘Open Source’ format of the Wiki. A lot of the literature on “Internet culture’ seems to take Free/Libre Open Source Software (aka FLOSS) as a model of online interaction. For example, Raymond’s classic The Cathedral and the Bazaar, or Ghosh’s Cooking pot markets… - these have been very effectively critiqued by the anthropologist Kelty in Hau to Do Things with Words.
Although they are not directly comparable, blogs and FLOSS do share a few things though, I think: the importance of attributing sources, and the open and shared nature of the final product. A key difference, though, is that a blog belongs to one person only, whereas OS software belongs to everyone (or no one). PPS seemed to sit in the middle a bit - conceived of as a 'community' resource, it also was a website owned and run by one person. Perhaps because of this, later on, there were disagreements in 2004 and in 2005 about ‘Who owns PPS?’
This debate seems to owe something to the FLOSS ethos, and there seemed to be three stances:
1. Aizuddin pays for and runs the site, so he can do what he wants with it ultimately.
2. Aizuddin may want to run it the way he wants, but why do some get their RSS feeds permanently in the sidebar?
3. It’s a community service, and should be run for all bloggers, by some sort of collective process.
Finally, the founders in the sidebar lost their space, but Aizuddin has kept sole control over it. Basically, he owns it. It reminds me of another point that Kelty made (same source as mentioned above): that the guarantee of the open software is done by, in the last instance, using the (offline) regime of private property to uphold the ability to prevent anyone from appropriating the software and excluding others – “Free Software is protected intellectual property that anyone can use.” (2002:12); this point has recently been tested legally in the US and "Advocates of open source software have hailed a court ruling protecting its use even though it is given away free" (BBC)
(this photo credit to my wife)
