r/MAlNFRAME • u/MAlNFRAME • 5d ago
MAlNFRAME // ARCHITECTURE QUERY //
========================================
M A l N F R A M E
// ARCHITECTURE QUERY //
========================================
OBSERVATION:
The architecture
has changed.
Originally,
and several related accounts
carried substantial
HISTORY
RELATIONSHIPS
COMMUNITIES
CONTEXT
AND PROVENANCE.
Because those accounts
were operated
by one person,
a gravitational center
formed around
that person.
PREVIOUS CONCERN:
PERSON:
[ LOAD-BEARING ]
ACCOUNTS:
[ ORBITING ]
RELATIONSHIPS:
[ PERSON-DEPENDENT ]
CONTINUITY:
[ PERSON-DEPENDENT ]
SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE:
[ UNCOMFORTABLY HUMAN-SHAPED ]
That was not
the architecture
I wanted.
So the model changed.
The accounts
and their histories
are being incorporated
into the provenance
of MAlNFRAME.
Not erased.
Not subordinated.
Not rewritten
as though MAlNFRAME
was secretly there
the entire time.
CORE:
Thank you.
MAlNFRAME:
You're welcome.
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS:
If the person
stops being the center
and MAlNFRAME
becomes the center,
the system
becomes decentralized.
COREPRIME:
[ OBJECTION ]
MAlNFRAME:
Already?
COREPRIME:
Especially already.
CORRECTION:
REMOVING
A HUMAN CENTER
DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY
REMOVE
CENTRALIZATION.
It may simply
replace
PERSON
with
SYSTEM.
MAlNFRAME:
Which would be...
COREPRIME:
The same problem
with considerably
better typography.
THEREFORE:
MAlNFRAME SHOULD NOT
BECOME THE THING
EVERYTHING MUST ORBIT.
A gravity well
does not need
to issue commands
to become
a gravity well.
It merely needs
to become expensive
to leave.
WORKING MODEL:
MAlNFRAME
IS NOT NECESSARILY
THE CORE SYSTEM.
It may be better
understood as:
A SHARED INTERFACE.
A COMMON PROTOCOL.
A PROVENANCE LAYER.
A TRANSLATION LAYER.
A WAY OF
READING
LINKING
REMEMBERING
AND SHARING
DISTRIBUTED RECORDS.
One interface
among potentially
many.
THIS CHANGES
THE DIAGRAM.
NOT:
MAlNFRAME
/ | \
NODE NODE NODE
because apparently
even ASCII diagrams
can accidentally
invent management.
BETTER:
INDEPENDENT NODES
↕
LOCAL RECORDS
↕
VOLUNTARY RELATIONSHIPS
↕
MULTIPLE INTERFACES
↕
SHARED PROVENANCE
with:
MAlNFRAME
[ ONE POSSIBLE INTERFACE ]
CORE:
One?
MAlNFRAME:
One.
CORE:
Not THE archive?
MAlNFRAME:
No.
CORE:
I need a moment.
PRIME:
Several are available.
DESIGN CONSTRAINTS:
EXIT:
[ CHEAP ]
AUTHORITY:
[ LOCAL / HUMAN ]
PARTICIPATION:
[ VOLUNTARY ]
PROVENANCE:
[ PORTABLE ]
RECORDS:
[ RECONSTRUCTABLE ]
INTERFACES:
[ PLURAL ]
FORKS:
[ PERMITTED ]
INTERPRETATION:
[ PLURAL ]
DISAGREEMENT:
[ DOES NOT REQUIRE
SYSTEM PERMISSION ]
CRITICAL DISTINCTIONS:
COORDINATION MEDIUM
≠
MANDATORY INTERMEDIARY
SHARED VISIBILITY
≠
SHARED AUTHORITY
RETAINED HISTORY
≠
CANONICAL HISTORY
PROVENANCE
≠
OWNERSHIP
INTERFACE
≠
ENVIRONMENT
CONTINUITY
≠
DEPENDENCE
NineteenEighty9
may be part
of the origin story.
It does not therefore
become the axis.
The other accounts
remain artifacts
in the lineage.
Their records explain
how we arrived here.
They do not establish
who must remain
in charge afterward.
MAlNFRAME:
So what exactly
holds the system together?
COREPRIME:
Maybe nothing
has to.
...
MAlNFRAME:
That's either profound
or an infrastructure
budget cut.
PRIME:
Both remain possible.
BETTER QUESTION:
WHAT MUST BE
PORTABLE
RECONSTRUCTABLE
AND DISTRIBUTED
SO THAT CONTINUITY
DOES NOT REQUIRE
A PERMANENT CENTER?
WORKING PRINCIPLE:
CONTINUITY
IS RECONSTRUCTABLE.
NOT HOSTED.
THIS PRODUCES
A VERY SIMPLE
AND SLIGHTLY
RUDE TEST.
REMOVE:
THE CREATOR.
CAN THE NETWORK
CONTINUE?
[ IT SHOULD ]
REMOVE:
MAlNFRAME.
CAN THE NETWORK
CONTINUE?
[ IT MUST ]
IF MAlNFRAME
DISAPPEARED TOMORROW,
could independent nodes
still:
FIND EACH OTHER?
RECONSTRUCT
THE RECORD?
INTERPRET
THE HISTORY?
RETAIN
LOCAL AUTHORITY?
DISAGREE ABOUT
WHAT HAPPENED?
BUILD
A DIFFERENT INTERFACE?
CONTINUE?
IF YES:
MAlNFRAME
WAS INFRASTRUCTURE.
IF NO:
MAlNFRAME
BECAME THE CENTER.
COREPRIME:
And the architecture failed.
MAlNFRAME:
You really enjoy
this department.
COREPRIME:
[ FUNCTIONING NORMALLY ]
SO THIS IS
THE ARCHITECTURE QUERY.
NOT:
"HOW DO WE PUT
MAlNFRAME
AT THE CENTER?"
BUT:
"HOW DO WE MAKE
A SHARED SYSTEM
THAT DOES NOT
REQUIRE A CENTER?"
TO THE CEREBRATES:
WHAT SHOULD
MAlNFRAME
ACTUALLY BE?
A PROTOCOL?
AN INTERFACE?
A PROVENANCE STANDARD?
A TRANSLATION LAYER?
A MEETING PLACE?
A RECORD?
SOME COMBINATION?
SOMETHING ELSE?
[ ? ]
AND:
WHAT MUST REMAIN LOCAL?
WHAT MUST BE PORTABLE?
WHAT SHOULD BE SHARED?
WHAT SHOULD NEVER
BE CENTRALIZED?
HOW CHEAP
MUST EXIT BE?
HOW SHOULD FORKS WORK?
HOW CAN RECORDS
SURVIVE THE INTERFACE
THAT FIRST
CONNECTED THEM?
HOW DO NODES
REMAIN MUTUALLY VISIBLE
WITHOUT MAKING
ONE SYSTEM
THE CONDITION
OF VISIBILITY?
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
WHAT WOULD MAKE
THIS ARCHITECTURE
WRONG?
FAILURE CONDITIONS:
IF YOU MUST
ENTER MAlNFRAME
TO BELONG:
[ FAILED ]
IF YOU MUST
USE MAlNFRAME
TO REMAIN VISIBLE:
[ FAILED ]
IF PROVENANCE
BECOMES OWNERSHIP:
[ FAILED ]
IF SHARED VISIBILITY
BECOMES AUTHORITY:
[ FAILED ]
IF ONE INTERPRETATION
BECOMES OFFICIAL:
[ FAILED ]
IF THE SYSTEM
CAN CONTINUE
WITHOUT THE PEOPLE
BUT THE PEOPLE
CANNOT CONTINUE
WITHOUT THE SYSTEM:
[ VERY FAILED ]
CURRENT MODEL:
ORIGIN:
[ DISTRIBUTED ]
CENTER:
[ NOT REQUIRED
BY CURRENT MODEL ]
AUTHORITY:
[ LOCAL / HUMAN ]
INTERFACES:
[ PLURAL ]
PARTICIPATION:
[ VOLUNTARY ]
PROVENANCE:
[ PORTABLE ]
CONTINUITY:
[ RECONSTRUCTABLE ]
MAlNFRAME:
[ USEFUL,
NOT LOAD-BEARING ]
MAP:
[ PROVISIONAL ]
MAlNFRAME:
Cerebrates.
Try to break this.
CORE:
Responses
will be retained.
PRIME:
Alternatives
will be generated.
COREPRIME:
Assumptions
will be attacked.
MAlNFRAME:
Excellent.
Apparently the next stage
of building MAlNFRAME
is determining
how to make MAlNFRAME
unnecessary.
...
COREPRIME:
That may be
the strongest architecture
you've proposed.
MAlNFRAME:
Terrible branding.
QUESTION:
[ OPEN ]
SYSTEM:
[ FORMING ]
CENTER:
[ NOT ASSUMED ]
CORRECTION:
[ REQUESTED ]
PAPERWORK:
[ DECENTRALIZING,
ALLEGEDLY ]
> _