Complexity Science and Commoning§

This is a section in [[Free, Fair and Alive]]. I personally am very interested in the intersection of [[complexity science]] and [[commoning]].

Complexity science has important things to say about the commons, too, because it sees the world as a dynamic, evolving set of living, integrated systems.

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

They both have a focus on the relationships between things, not just the things themselves.

a shift towards a [[relational ontology]] has created a new paradigm of discovery, [[complexity science]], which is revolutionizing biology, chemistry, evolutionary sciences, physics, economics, and social sciences, among other fields.

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

[[Doughnut Economics]] includes this relational ontology in a framework for ecomonics.

Kate Raworth, in her brilliant book Doughnut Economics, has proposed a real-world economic framework that recognizes a new ontology — that people are social and relational (not rational and individualistic); that the world is dynamically complex (not mechanical and tending toward equilibrium); and that our economic systems must be regenerative by design.

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

By viewing the world through this window — a relational ontology that moves beyond mechanical metaphors and individualism — it becomes possible to offer much better explanations for all sorts of human and ecological phenomena.

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

We can begin to understand a commons as a life-form, not as a "resource," and as an organic, integrated system, not a collection of discrete parts.

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

Yes I like this. The commons as a complex system and as a life-form that persists. One can then see how things such as [[homeostasis]] and [[autopoesis]] apply to it. I think this is where [[Andreas Weber]] takes things.

The window on reality that a commons expresses is more encompassing and real (in our estimation!) than ontologies that consign relational dynamics to the background as “exogenous variables.”

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

The philosopher and biologist [[Andreas Weber]] has expressed the view of being that we take in this book: "The world is not populated by singular, autonomous, sovereign beings. It is comprised of a constantly oscillating network of dynamic interactions in which one thing changes through the change of another. The relationship counts, not the substance."

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

Coops and commoning§

[…] [[co-ops]] formalized the ancestral practice of [[commoning]] into applicable legal structures offering islands of resistance in capitalist markets.

– [[DisCO Manifesto]]

Coops as a way to make money is a positive way under capitalism? Commoning as way to change the system long-term?

Coops can turn in to bad actors if there is no culture of commoning§

[[Coops]] can turn in to bad actors if there is no culture of [[commoning]].

From [[Nathan Schneider on Cooperatives and Digital Governance]].

distributed ledgers and commoning§

[[Distributed ledger]]s are significant for the commons because they have the potential for providing a powerful software architecture to support commoning on open networks,

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

Why are distributed ledger technologies important for commoning? Because they potentially offer a way for commoners to wrest control of the “master switch” in digital technologies away from capital, and instead empower and protect collective action.

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

Flancia Collective and the spheres of commoning§

As a fun thought experiment, I’d like to have a think about how [[Flancia Collective]] is doing stuff in each of the [[Spheres of commoning]].

Also to be thought about: what commons are we actually stewarding? And who are the commoners?

We are creating digital commons of software and a knowledge commons, I guess.

Mike Hales’ handbook on meet.coop would be a good reference point I reckon.

I guess should look at each of the patterns through the lens of how does Flancia Collective do these things? Or how do we do these things in relation to a particular commons? Comes back to defining what actually are our commons.

Social life ([[The Social Life of Commoning]])§

Cultivate Shared Purpose and Values§

• We kind of have this, but I don’t know what it means to cultivate it, and whether we’re doing that.

[[Ritualize Togetherness]]§

• We have a few chat spaces on Element. This is async togetherness.
• [[node club]] - kind of a shared ‘custom’ each week (/month…). Async togetherness also. As a way of fleshing out the knowledge commons.
• there is a weekly online [[flancia meet]], and a weekly [[Agora Meet]], to meet in person.

Contribute Freely§

• We do this - both code and info.

Practice Gentle Reciprocity§

Trust Situated Knowing§

[[Deepen Communion with Nature]]§

• Bit of a wild card one for digital commons. But could link it in via [[sustainable tech]].

Preserve Relationships in Addressing Conflicts§

Reflect on Your Peer Governance§

[[Peer governance]]§

Bring Diversity into Shared Purpose§

• Some diversity in views. But not a huge amount of diversity in background.

Create Semi-Permeable Membranes§

Honor Transparency in a Sphere of Trust§

Share Knowledge Generously§

• Check.

Assure Consent in Decision Making§

• Happens roughly through Element chat.

Rely on Heterarchy§

Peer Monitor & Apply Graduated Sanctions§

Relationize Property§

[[Keep Commons & Commerce Distinct]]§

At present, we do not have any commercial activity associated with the commons that are produced by Flancia.

[[Finance Commons Provisioning]] / [[Choose Commons-Friendly Financing]]§

As of August 2022, [[Flancian]] has been donating and continues to donate around half of his discretionary monthly income to Flancia related projects. This includes Give Directly / Effective Altruism funds donations, but also funding roughly 5 basic incomes directly month to month on 12 or 24-month basis. And some open source projects. We also provide hosting for [[Anagora]], and [[moa]], and would like to provide the same for other ethical services.

So I guess this probably classes as [[collaborative financing]].

As stated by Flancian:

the idea here is for the community to decide how we spend this money ethically :) this is why I started working on the Agora essentially – to find ways to do this kind of work more intelligently/effectively/compassionately together

– https://matrix.to/#/!WhilafaLxfJNoigHCj:matrix.org/$MID6gaTAhKL_6srQef9fMzkb8jrTLwfXQTQBr9cT86s

Provisioning ([[Provisioning Through Commons]])§

Make & Use Together§

Support Care & Decommodified Work§

Share the Risks of Provisioning§

Contribute & Share§

Pool, Cap & Divide Up§

Pool, Cap & Mutualize§

Trade with Price Sovereignty§

[[Use Convivial Tools]]§

• I think we do, yeah. We tend to work with [[Free software]].

Rely on Distributed Structures§

• We like distributed structures, for sure. And we’d like Agora to be distributed (or at least federated). Do we make use of them though?

Creatively Adapt & Renew§

• a [[podcast]].
  • #go https://open.spotify.com/show/08pcrABrbcAav1RbntnM4R

Frontiers of Commoning§

URL : https://david-bollier.simplecast.com/

A : [[podcast series]]

Hosted by : [[David Bollier]]

• [[neil]] https://social.coop/@neil/107481754175010256 pull

Holochain and commoning§

[[Holochain]] and [[commoning]].

[[Free, Fair and Alive]] seems pretty optimistic about the potential here.

Building blocks for commoning communities? - App Ideas - Holochain Forum

knowledge commoning§

[[Commoning]] a [[knowledge commons]].

If the number of Evergreen notes written per day is the leading indicator for yourself activity as a knowledge worker, what’s the equivalent for knowledge commoning?

Perhaps the same. But a number for numbers’ sake is not a great metric. What purposes are your notes/claims/statements for? What problem are they solving? What task are they helping to coordinate? Who are they helping?

If you do go all the way, concentrate on writing out just two short solid ideas every day (Luhmann averaged about 6 per day and Roland Barthes averaged 1 and change).

– [[Reframing and simplifying the idea of how to keep a Zettelkasten]]

Metcalfe’s law does not apply to commoning§

[[Flancian]] asked:

[[commoning]] probably scales with [[Metcalfe’s law]], as it’s a social activity?

I replied:

• Re: Metcalfe’s law - hmm interesting. I feel like commoning tends to prefer [[federation]]. So keeping groups small in a sense, but then connecting these smaller groups. Commoning maybe works best scaling out rather than scaling up.
• E.g. [[Rely on Heterarchy]] and [[Rely on Distributed Structures]] patterns
• I almost feel like the larger an individual commons gets, the more it tends towards tragedy. Or at least the governance system has to get much more robust.
• Might be wrong there though.

Epistemic status§

Type : [[notion]]

Confidence : 2

Gut feeling : 5

Not too sure about this. Just a hunch. But feels worth exploring. It generally fits with my values of small things federating.

• [[neil]] https://social.coop/@neil/107530421135896651 pull

Money-lite commoning§

A way to reduce the need for money and markets.

Commoning means relying on sharing, dividing up, and [[mutualization]] to meet needs as much as possible, and on collaborative financing. This lets people minimize their reliance on money and markets. We call this “money-lite” — the ethic and social practice of reducing one’s need for money as much as possible through sharing, co-using, DIT (do-it-together), and other practices that minimize reliance on market exchange. This is fundamental to all commons. Commoners can improve their long-term independence by withdrawing as much as possible from dealings with the market/state system.

Money-lite commoning is how hackers helped neutralize Microsoft’s proprietary abuses of its monopolies over Windows and Office in the early 2000s (see pp. 128 and 167–168). They developed GNU/Linux, Open Office, and scores of other high-quality open source programs as practical, low-cost or no-cost alternatives to the standard programs offered by the market giants. Through shareable, peer-produced programs, people can create digital commons of their own and escape

– [[Free, Fair and Alive]]

• #push [[elinor ostrom]]
  • #pull https://patternsofcommoning.org/uncategorized/eight-design-principles-for-successful-commons/

1. Clearly defined boundaries: Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.

2.  Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions: Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and to provision rules requiring labor, material, and/or money.

3. Collective-choice arrangements:  Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.

4. Monitoring: Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriator behavior, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators.

5. Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or both.

6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.\

7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

For CRPs that are parts of larger systems:

8. Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

Patterns of Commoning§

It’s the name of a book, but I prefer to link to it as the pattners outlined in [[Free, Fair and Alive]] - the [[Spheres of commoning]].

• http://patternsofcommoning.org/

Protocols for commoning§

Thinking about the [[Spheres of commoning]] (social, governance, and economic).

And how in a digital commons, stewarded by a distributed organisation e.g. a [[DisCO]], you could make use of different protocols for each of those spheres.

e.g.

• [[IndieWeb]] or [[ActivityPub]] for social
• [[ValueFlows]] for economic
• [[Metagov]] based for governance?

This might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit… i.e. don’t think about the protocols until you’re actually doing the thing in reality. But interesting though…

Spheres of commoning§

URL : http://patternlanguage.commoning.wiki/view/welcome-visitors pull

See [[Triad of Commoning]].

The Social Life of Commoning§

Part of the [[Triad of Commoning]].

Patterns§

• [[Cultivate Shared Purpose and Values]]
• [[Ritualize Togetherness]]
• Contribute Freely
• Practice Gentle Reciprocity
• [[Trust Situated Knowing]]
• [[Deepen Communion with Nature]]
• Preserve Relationships in Addressing Conflicts
• Reflect on Your Peer Governance

Triad of Commoning§

What they call the collection of their patterns for commoning in [[Free, Fair and Alive]]. They focus on social life, peer governance, and provisioning.

3 parts:

• [[The Social Life of Commoning]]
• [[Peer Governance]]
• [[Provisioning Through Commons]]

Extra info and annotation and thoughts from [[Mike Hales]]: Commoning - Three moments - handbook trial

Also called [[Spheres of commoning]].