hierarchies appropriate them too easily. The Creative Commons and Copyleft li-
cences are some initial experiments to keep information open and shared.
When open protocol ideas and tools for delegation materialize through decentral-
ized networks they may facilitate other forms of control, and even manifest into
enslaving artefacts. Heath and Potter noted that decentralized design does not al-
ways stay decentralized, as in the example of the sewing machine.
Hailed as a revolutionary device when it first appeared, certain to free housewives
from a great deal of boring and exhausting sewing, the sewing machines soon begat
the sweatshop. (Heath & Potter 2005: 303)However, what Heath and Potter disregards is that the sewing machine promised
to release the early 20th century western housewife from much of the sewing work,
and it indeed did, for today her home no longer has to act as a part-time sweatshop.
The sewing machine was always placed in both the factory and the home (Putnam
1999). Yet, the objects of design that once promised decentralization were instead
mass-assembled in new locations to form a new working economy that did not
accord with the designers’ originally stated aims. This example highlights the desire
from the open source community to shape licences guaranteeing that information
stays free and to help people to stay free. The future will tell if the further materi-
alizations of protocol can help us with this task.
During the Swap-O-Rama-Rama the sewing machine was used to liberate and the
protocols surrounding the event facilitated wide participation and for much sur-
plus material to change hands and be remade into new clothes. As Tremayne cre-
ated a simple and open instruction for how to organize a Swap, the protocol let her
surrender control to others, but still managed to have a say in how the events were
to be run. This also let the events stay on a scale that she preferred, without corpo-
rate influence or sponsorship deals going out of her hands. Managing events like
these encourages people to participate and feel that they can make a difference and
that their fellow contributors can share their initiatives. It also puts the event out of
reach for hierarchical control as everyone is free to “hijack” or copy the event, and
no lock can be put on it.
This type of protocol is paradoxically not “free” enough and it must also guarantee
some form of critical self-reflection. We must continuously renegotiate the terms
and keep them dynamic, as the situations around us will change. These negotia-
tions must be open, as well inviting those kept outside the old protocol to partici-
pate, as we must be able to change perspectives. The initiator or administrator
should not be another form of tyrant, for then we are back in the hierarchy. The
question is to keep the network open, and still allow it to run democratically.
To bring the discussion slightly further along in regard to the design of protocols
and how small change can be applied in a practical design project I would like to
discuss the Dale Sko Hack project, which was a practical application of these ideas
in a factory environment. It was a project that aimed to explore a method for prob-
ing the forces at play between the global fashion system and small-scale local pro-
duction using collaborative design practices. This method was an open approach
to fashion design, rethinking roles and linear or sequential modes of assembly in
industrial production. It was prototyped and tested during a collaborative work-
shop in a small Norwegian shoe factory, Dale Sko.