[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Samuel Rose]

This is in response to no one message in particular.  Just a reply to
http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Commons_Boundary_Conditions to state:

I *like* the idea of a distinction of a "P2P" commons.  "P2P" as a
pattern language referring to "Open everything":
http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Open and infrastructure of all types
being within the "control" of the individual (in Forward Foundation
http://forwardfound.org discourse, we are calling this "Access
Commons".)

This doesn't mean that all commons "need to be" this way, but that
this is a description of what a "P2P commons" may look like, using our
pattern language here of what we generally refer to as "P2P" (many
others may not yet be familiar with this pattern language)

It is interesting to look at "commons" through the lens of "P2P".
Previous world views and paradigms seemed to have lacked a basic
assumption that each individual may have complete control of, and
access to, an infrastructure which fundamentally requires more than
one participant to succeed. This means that maintaining systems
requires mutual cooperation, and people of all world views tend to
come to an understanding about this. That is, *if* access to, and
control of infrastructure really does exist at the individual
scale....


-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Forward Foundation
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org
http://wikieducator.org

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan