Decentralised governance in commons

# Decentralised governance in commons **A session at Open2020, Day 2** Fri 12 Jun 2020 Mike Hales https://hackmd.io/@mh2020/Hy8aaDqhI >Script for the opening segments of the session, as context for the panel segment, followed by breakouts. >This will be presented as a YouTube recording, with animated slides. --- ## 1 Governance in a new economy In yesterday’s session we mapped new-economy practice in terms of four ‘regimes’ of provisioning - a **dance** of provisioning - with the ‘new social economy’ at the centre. `graphic slide` At the heart of the new social economy is commoning. `graphic slide` Today we’re concerned with how the governance of an infrastructure should be carried out in a social economy built around commons. **The commons is the glue.** `slide` There are three features of commoning, which together make it a deeply radical core of new economy . . `slide` - Commoning moves Beyond the **state**, the **market** & the **consumerist household** - Commoning moves Beyond **movement fragmentation** - it calls for a skilful 'dance' of collaboration, a weave of ‘care work’ - Commoning moves Beyond an **extractive economy** - it’s oriented to the grandchildren’s grandchildren & the Planet ## 2 Contributing in commons Commoning involves three kinds of contribution . . `slide` - Curating some set of resources - making, provisioning, nurturing, harvesting - some **means of subsistence and wellbeing**. `slide` - Enjoying those resources - mobilising, weaving, handling-in-context , appreciating, celebrating. `slide` - Stewarding those resources - maintaining, modulating, sanctioning, defending. `slide` >It’s the stewarding that **makes** it a commons. If it's not stewarded by commoners - contributors and beneficiaries - it's not a commons. ## 3 Four models of governance for digital resources In this session, in breakouts, we’ll consider - the non-geek, general, public use of **digital resources in a commons** - under **four models** of progressive governance & stewarding. - - a classic free software model - - a classic consumer coop model - - a grassroots ’movement organisation' model - - a full fledged commons model >Only the first of these has any strong presence right now, in the domain of digital means. So we need to be thinking . . what direction do we need to move in? This is what we’ll discuss in breakouts, after the panel, which comes next. I’ll say a bit now about each governance model - or tradition. >This will be provocative to some degree, for the purposes of prompting further enquiries. ### A classic free-libre open-source software model (FLOSS) `graphic slide` Here you have ethical peer-to-peer producers of free software - free as in freedom and autonomy, not free as in free beer. This is driven by the free-web **aesthetic** of excellent universally interworking pieces of digital machinery. - Free software **producers** assemble a storefront or portal of FLOSS apps. - There are many such portals. Disroot does this. So does FairApps (Germany), May First Technology Movement (US), Cryptpad, Framasoft (France). And behind these storefronts, there are ‘wholesalers’ - Cloudron, NextCloud, Sandstorm. Lots of supply. - Effectively what **we** see, as tool users, is a market of free, pro-bono goods - of somewhat variable quality. In commons terms, this is an **unregulated common pool**, not a commons. - So what we find - as non-geeks, not hackers, just activists or cooperators looking for tools to use - is **free-libre** production in a commons, overlaid with **'free beer'** consumption in an unregulated common pool. ### A classic **consumer coop model** `graphic slide` The emphasis in the coop tradition is centrally on governance, typically called ‘democracy’ . . - Governance is founded on Coop principles and values - Coops are **membership organisations** - where membership equals a formal ownership **stake**, or share in governance. - Shares are assigned voting rights, and these organisations pivot on **annual meetings** and general meetings, with voting. Consumer coops are not intrinsically about the production and curating of resources - which is the pivot in the P2P model. >Traditionally there is tension between producer and consumer coops, as models of cooperation. - Coops are not - not necessarily - about enjoying and mobilising the resources that are produced in the coop - as regards the uses that **customers** make of the goods or services. - They **are** customers. In this regard, this is like the open-source software model - it’s a commodity market, or unregulated common pool. The three aspects of a commons - curating, stewarding and enjoying - may more readily get brought together, in **multistakeholder coops**. Although it’s been around for years, this isn’t the most widespread model, and it’s perhaps not very fully developed or widely understood. This is still leading edge practice - perhaps bleeding edge. ### A grassroots 'movement organisation’ model `graphic slide` We’re talking here of organisations oriented to grassroots resistance, with a vision of **dual power**, an opposition to the centralist state and the **direct hands-on making** of society, culture and economy. This tradition stems from same roots as the coop model, but the emphasis is on **civil power** rather than **trade and provisioning** of means of subsistence. *It’s political rather than economic.* So, here again there is a strong orientation towards **stewarding** as distinct from curating or enjoying of resources. But here there also is an emphasis on the **autonomy** of political units: autonomous, creative, productive activity of communities: historically this has meant . . soviets, citizens’ committees, community assemblies. And so on. - Organisations in this tradition are strongly oriented to **assemblies?** with full recall of delegates, and associated with battle cries like: “All power to the constituent assembly! All power to the soviets!!” - This is quite probably a **membership organisation**? Maybe with subscriptions, sign-ons, membership lists, residence qualifications, and so on? - In this model, so-called **‘higher' assemblies** (which have greater scale and longer reach) serve so-called **‘lower' assemblies** (with their feet on the ground, their attention on-the-patch). *The people’s organisations in Rojava, SE Turkey, are a current important example, up against the Turkish state.* ### A full fledged **commons model** `graphic slide` Under this model, with digital tools, we’re needing to consider **distributed** commoners - members of a web commons - of **globally distributed** resources . . . . with all commoners participating in curating, stewarding and enjoying the commons - that is, carrying out the **care work** of the commons. - Commoning is intrinsically radical - David Bollier & Silke Helfrich speak of “**the insurgent power of the commons**”. Commoning necessarily moves beyond the state, the capitalist market and the consumerist household . . these are opposed by a fabric of **'mutual sector'**, interweaving, collaborating peer associations. This is somewhat like the grassroots movement organisation, but with this difference - there **is** an intrinsic emphasis here, on the **care work** of the commons. Specifically . . - Commons governance pivots on stewarding for **the grandchildren’s grandchildren** - the spirit of Fridays for Future. - The care-work practice runs **all the way up** the levels, thro commons-of-commons-of commons. These are not basically assemblies, they are basically **locations of care work**. - Uniquely - compared with the other three governance modes - commoners are focused on *the long term, the species, the common environment of all peoples* . . not as an abstract political principle or a **‘value’** or just an aim . . but as an everyday, immediate, practical, concrete **relationship of provisioning**. This form of governance requires a practice of organising and performing care work - enjoying and contributing, not just quote-unquote ‘decision making’ or ‘democracy’. >Commoning is **fundamentally** economic - as well as deeply political. Some say “**The commons is the glue**”. I think so. >I have a strong hunch that, as regards **commons of digital means**, some new hybrid of all four forms is called for. #### Not a typology These four models are not a typology, not intended to provide a full classification of governance forms. This is just a frame, for the breakout discussions. >But only the first of these models - the free software model - has any strong presence right now, in the domain of digital means. What direction do we need to move in? --- NEXT: The panel. Then, breakouts. Finally, Wouter Tebbens of the *Online Meeting Coop*, responding on the above challenges.