[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

Sat Feb 27 15:17:35 CET 2010

A few thoughts:

>> 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.
>

Complex systems possess scalar dimensions, too. Living systems tend to
adapt/evolve to sense and perceive different dimensions and parts of
those scales. It is true that there are no real "boundaries" across
those scales. Alex is right. This is an important question, Alex,
thanks for raising it.

This is discussed starting a few decades ago in "hierarchy theory" (
see http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm ) and you can trace it forward
into Complex Systems theory from there.

The management of a commons at least works if there are conceptual
boundaries in the minds of participants. This is well documented in
the work of Ostrum. If participants *understand* how to participate
*without* conceptual boundaries related to any resource, then I can
imagine it is plausible they can still successfully co-manage it. (For
instance, if they instead focus on the identifiable things that are
connected in a plurality of ways.)

My question is this: are there any real world examples that anyone can
offer to date where people did not create conceptual boundaries around
resources, whether to co-manage and share, or exploit them?

Would people be able to more effectively participate in a commons if
the map more closely resembles the territory? (shifting and changing
on all scales over time)

The tools that we as Forward Foundation are creating and deploying now
in food, energy and manufacturing systems, do indeed assume that the
picture is more effective if it is changeable over time.

For participants, we do not map "roles".  Instead we focus on actions
and activities. Resources are mapped as subtractable, and
non-subtractable (instead of who owns the resource). There's more to
this, and we'll be publishing about it, plus releasing F/LOS software
that does this soon.

More replies below this exchange:

>>
>> 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
>

I personally define "P2P" to mean this:

On the scale of an individual person: this person has full access to,
and control over who, what, when, why and how they participate.

However, there are limits to what that person can do as an individual
with this access. Inevitably, that person, no matter *what* their
fundamental assumptions about solving problems of existence may be,
discovers they *must* connect in some ways *with* other people to
sustain any advantage they gain from this access and control.

What do you all think about that?

(Please refrain from replying to me off list. Your replies of any type
are more useful to everyone in public. Thanks.)

> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
-- 
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