I’m not sure whether you are responding to “modulations” here, but the words modulate and module are actually very different words. They share a Latin root (modulus) which means ‘measure’ but the former is most often used in music, and in the 20th century, to modulate signals; whereas the latter is more general in its sense of a measure of something, and has a range of meanings in different domains. I obviously think the term modulation, with its connotations of music making and clever manipulation of signals speaks to the kinds of fears you mention…

I think in many ways “module” can have a similar effect. It’s just something that fills a box. I don’t want to think of my code, or even my functions, or libraries as modules. They are functional, but they are also something I’m proud of. When I write educational works, I don’t want to think of them as mere modules, either. And if I were to draft legislation or legal code, I think I would feel similarly. It’s hard work, and it takes a mix of art, craft, and logic to create functional works that you are proud enough to share with others.

As such, much care should taken when we talk about those works. If we ask people to create modules for us, they probably won’t, because they will feel like they just us to toss some dirt in a whole that needs to be filled. So when we advertise our desire for people to jump in to put their time, energy, and imagination to join us to make some text, or music, or video, or code, we should talk about what we are striving for. That we are going to make things other people are going to want to use, because it’s awesome. And we are going to make it in a form that others can make it even more awesome and unique and different.

We can be good salespeople. We can communicate in a way that understands the psychology of the reader and feeds into and garners and directs their unique talents, energies, and ideas. And we can do so in a way that promotes kinship and mindfulness.

Here’s an idea. When we advertise to people that we want their help, we should try to choose language that is gemeinschaft* in nature. When we need to get into details, like how patches are submitted, or other things, we can delve into the more contractual language, that is, in a sense, gesellschaft* in nature. (* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_and_Gesellschaft).

Coordinating collaborations is a hard problem, but, I think it should motivated first by the movement, and secondly by the idea of sharing, and lastly by the idea of how to effectively share, and then the details of ensuring that the works can be preserved socially and legally. A phrase like “module,” seems like a legal abstraction, so far removed from the work and the individual — perhaps best left as a formal language hidden away inside of documents.

I’m totally up for Chris’s call to re-mix. Kavita and I have also been playing with the idea of “re-mix” at the Red Technopolitics blog. Re-mixing not only has the music/technical edge to it, but also genealogies of baking, and of course, all sorts of alchemical vats and contemporary reactors. I particularly liked your formulation as re-mixing genres/modes of communication/thinking — book, blog, scholarship, etc. This historian in me can’t help but think the re-mix as genealogical, as inheretances (reproductions) undergoing messy redistribution.

stirring it up,
Michelle

I think in many ways “module” can have a similar effect. It’s just something that fills a box. I don’t want to think of my code, or even my functions, or libraries as modules. They are functional, but they are also something I’m proud of. When I write educational works, I don’t want to think of them as mere modules, either. And if I were to draft legislation or legal code, I think I would feel similarly. It’s hard work, and it takes a mix of art, craft, and logic to create functional works that you are proud enough to share with others.

As such, much care should taken when we talk about those works. If we ask people to create modules for us, they probably won’t, because they will feel like they just us to toss some dirt in a whole that needs to be filled. So when we advertise our desire for people to jump in to put their time, energy, and imagination to join us to make some text, or music, or video, or code, we should talk about what we are striving for. That we are going to make things other people are going to want to use, because it’s awesome. And we are going to make it in a form that others can make it even more awesome and unique and different.

We can be good salespeople. We can communicate in a way that understands the psychology of the reader and feeds into and garners and directs their unique talents, energies, and ideas. And we can do so in a way that promotes kinship and mindfulness.

Here’s an idea. When we advertise to people that we want their help, we should try to choose language that is gemeinschaft* in nature. When we need to get into details, like how patches are submitted, or other things, we can delve into the more contractual language, that is, in a sense, gesellschaft* in nature. (* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_and_Gesellschaft).

Coordinating collaborations is a hard problem, but, I think it should motivated first by the movement, and secondly by the idea of sharing, and lastly by the idea of how to effectively share, and then the details of ensuring that the works can be preserved socially and legally. A phrase like “module,” seems like a legal abstraction, so far removed from the work and the individual — perhaps best left as a formal language hidden away inside of documents.