[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Ryan Lanham]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:

> It would seem to me that the discussion of boundaries presupposes a perfect
> "Commons" which would have to be the ultimate 'all' of Universe or something
> like that.
>
>
Hi Alex,

I agree.  The narrowest boundaries for commonality as to what is a commons
are pretty tight.


> On that note, it doesn't seem too much a jump to say that a Commons is
> always a 'system' of some kind.  If for no other reason than 'nothing is
> static, given enough time,' every Commons must be replenished, perhaps used,
> but in some way is always expended unless you are referring to Universe,
> because otherwise something is always creeping from inside one boundary to
> the inside of another.
>
>
Agreed.



> For this reason, I would add that the term 'boundary conditions' would more
> aptly be applied to the potentially arbitrary and hopefully conscientious
> useful boundary put around a Commons, with the idea being to say "this is
> this commons, with these supply chains, these distribution mechanics, these
> replenishment vectors, and any number of potential users involved in
> accepting the 'distributions' of the commons, whether that distribution is
> of a nature that diminishes the Commons or not.
>
>
Yes, but organizational theory has existed for a while even though
organizations are porous.  We have cell pathways but talk about cells even
though they are parts of larger systems.  Such distinctions are social
constructs that require agreement as to rules and norms.  Not everyone does
agree, so point taken that boundary discussions are always problematic.  An
yet, we always have boundaries.  The average Israeli or Palestinian would
draw the border different ways.  Outside of the language of power, how can
we ever reach accord?  Conventions are rarely negotiated fully...usually
someone just presents a pragmatic system baseline.  There really is no full
negotiation.  In the end, definitions are arbitrary, but the are real, too.


I concur with your idea that commons may use systematic or organizational
elements that are not directly in the spirit of the more exclusive ideals I
set out.


> I have been struggling with a sort of 'exploratory view' of an operation
> that works in tandem with a Commons, asking the question 'how does this
> operation touch the Commons?'  The idea is to help people find useful
> operations that they can undertake that work in league with the idea of
> re-enclosing, creating, or generally growing the Commons with some
> self-interest in mind.  Think bike fleets, housing, or food cultivation.
>
> Following this, it seems that because a view of a Commons as a system is
> useful, and because there are any number of processes happening within that
> Commons, that the boundary conditions would refer specifically to the ...
> endpoints ... the edges of relevance, on vectors or processes, with regards
> to the Commons in question.
>
>
I see where you are going, I think.  I don't have any quibbles with it.  If
you want the definition of commons (for you) to be more open to conventional
organizational aspects (e.g. having sales, dealing with scarcity ideas,
etc.) I am with you.  Others have different views.  Consensus is always
messy stuff.  Without it though, we end up creating even more arbitrary and
over-stated boundaries.


> I understand where the idea for these conditions came from.  I think they
> are much better called P2P operation conditions, and that they are
> operational, normative guidelines for P2P operations, as opposed to a
> definitive set of conditions for bounding a Commons, whether that Commons is
> P2P or not.
>
>
Again, I agree.  That's where I started last April..and what Michel just put
up on Facebook...a set of normative guidelines.  Those are harder in a sense
than organizational theory guidelines.



> The Commons definition/description page on the wiki seems to go at length
> in an effort to walk around and nail down the general, global, if not
> completely non-local idea of the Commons, and doesn't get into the sort of
> detail we are discussing with regards to the 'qualities' of the operation of
> a commons, from a P2P perspective or otherwise.
>
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons#Definition
>
> I am attempting to contextualize some criticism here, hopefully in a way
> that will allow me to do something useful on the wiki with regards to this
> information.  Where does it all go!
>
> So, to #1
> 1. A P2P Commons attempts to maximize free, voluntary and open sharing of
> assets that are engaged in the commons.
>
> How about
>
> "A Commons can be, and in some cases is, best managed using a P2P ethos and
> principles.  See: Managing a Commons with P2P (link)
>
> Since half the things you list are the specific P2P principles used in
> application of the 'how' of Commons governance, I think they would go on
> that page.  Some of what you are saying is about what a Commons IS.  I know
> you are really into property rights and state enforcement on some level, so,
> to say that somewhere in there would be helpful.  I think it's funny that
> you say that a Commons is all these things, and yet there is no single state
> institution that I am aware of that cannot be corrupted in some way shape or
> form that insures perpetuity, so your definitions of what a Commons "IS"
> make every Commons besides "Universe" not a Commons.  I'm not picking holes
> in this so much as to say that I appreciate your attempts to offer a rather
> large perspective on Commons, P2P, management, ownership, and a whole lot of
> other things, and I think that teasing them apart would be helpful,
> especially since you (and others) have put quite a bit into the principles
> page.
>
> Wouldn't it be cool to have a page about the specifics of a Commons in a
> P2P context?  I think the idea that there's a P2P context also pries apart
> the idea of the Commons in some useful way that might help us be more
> specific, brief, and clear on the Commons definition page, too!
>
> A
>
>
I think commons and P2P are separate, distinct and yet intertwined.  I don't
think one is a superset and the other a subset.  P2P is about governance to
a large degree.  Commons is about purpose or mode of function.  Of course,
purpose relates to governance and vice versa.  I think we need to engage on
both personally and to find out what the theories are.  P2P is harder...and
commons is already problematic and hard.  Combining them is messy.

How do we proceed when things are intertwined but different...like brain
cells and ideas?  In a sense we deal with them as different levels of
network protocols...I used to use the OSI 7 layer open systems protocol
models a lot.  It reminds me of those. At one level you are talking a
physical link with physical connections.  At another you might have a
transport protocol.  P2P and commons are analogous.  Something is going on
with different protocols at each level.  In biology, you might have
electro-chemical protocols which are obviously different but related to
psycho-social realities and protocols...built on (?)...but different...used
to differing ends and in different ways.  I'm not sure one reductionist or
analytical model gets you to the best or most efficient understanding.

It's hard to get a handle really.  Organizational theory is similar...many
modes of looking at one firm...systematic, institutional, etc. We can have
ten maps of California that are better than combining them into one map.
Still, we need a geography of the commons and of P2P.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100225/295f0b83/attachment.html>