|
List Info
Thread: The iCommons Lab Report
|
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-09 16:01:22 |
|
Re: The iCommons Lab Report
I had to laugh when I read the question of the Governance of an 'open and transparent' global community (page 1)- I presume they mean iCommons.
Who should iCommons ask for advice about setting up this open structure of governance? Sociologists? Political theorists? Political scientists? Us? Nope. --- They ask Hackers who release a distribution of the Linux operating system called Ubuntu. What?!? And they seem to be taking this advice seriously. I mean like, seriously.
Which bring us to...
How was the iCommons Code of Conduct passed (page 2)? I didn't see a vote, debate (beyond the wiki) or any of the so called 'open and transparent governance and processes' that are listed as a core value and principle... is this an example of 'consensus and running code'? I really wonder why certain things are missing (fairtrade/human rights anyone?) and who decided what was in and what was out... and how do we change it if we don't like it?
What is even weirder is the iCommons community council (iCCC) which is open for nominations (good), but then selected by iCommons Board which will make the final decision of the 9-13 iCCC members (not so good - why the shifting number? what power will it have?). This doesn't sound particularly open or transparent - how will we know the criteria for selection? Will the decision be made in public (i.e. we can attend the meeting as observers?)? Why can't the iCommons nodes who nominate vote? After all to quote from the iCommons Code of Conduct it is important that we 'avoid conflicts of interest' which requires clear procedures and processes to guide the election (if that is what it is). Where are they? Who decides?
A shame that 'open' and 'democratic' are traveling in different directions.
iCommons, the world is watching... and you are creating a corporate machine rather than a democratic one... is that what all the iCommoners, free culture and assorted supporters want? Success for Creative Commons/free culture is one thing, but lets not lose sight that the Means are just as important as the Ends.
David
------
iCommons Code of Conduct: The Text iCommons and the iCommons nodes adhere to these core values and principles: · iCommoners are respectful of the diversity of creativity and of intellectual thought. We are a diverse group of people - from civil society, business and governments; from the North and the South; from politically diverse backgrounds and cultures. We know that this kind of diversity is found in very few places, that it requires a very special kind of respect - and that we are especially mindful of this because it is our greatest strength. · iCommoners collaborate and help one another. Because we are a global commons movement, we recognise that not every community has the same level of connectivity/support etc, and as such, we recognise how important it is to collaborate with those from diverse cultural/political/economic contexts. We recognise that developing true partnerships between communities in the North and South is as important as developing cutting edge products and services. · iCommoners are committed to ensuring the freedom of societies to create, build upon and share the world's knowledge, culture and science. iCommoners believe that, because this freedom is essential to the freedom of expression, that we will promote the highest levels of open access to intellectual products for organisations and individuals - especially those with a public mandate. · iCommoners employ open and transparent governance and processes. Transparency is important because it encourages communal ownership of the iCommons network, allows us to learn from one another, helps and helps to avoid conflicts of interest. iCommoners will adopt transparent governance procedures without disrespecting individual privacy rights. |
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-09 16:17:13 |
On 11/9/06, David Berry <d.berry sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Re: The iCommons Lab Report
>
> I had to laugh when I read the question of the
Governance of an 'open and
> transparent' global community (page 1)- I presume they
mean iCommons.
>
> Who should iCommons ask for advice about setting up
this open structure of
> governance? Sociologists? Political theorists?
Political scientists? Us?
> Nope. --- They ask Hackers who release a distribution
of the Linux operating
> system called Ubuntu. What?!? And they seem to be
taking this advice
> seriously. I mean like, seriously.
Ubuntu has built a functional global community of peer
producers which
includes thousands of participants and a reasonably
functional
self-governance system. Frankly, CC has not done that, nor,
to the
best of my knowledge, have any sociologists, political
theorists, or
political scientists.* Is it perfect? No. Is it well
informed by over
a decade of experience in building functional communities
which
combine the feedback of thousands of people with sometimes
very
diverse goals ? Absolutely.
So I'd not be so quick to dismiss what they've done just
because of
who they are; if anything, they have a lot more relevant
applied
practice than the groups you'd have us look to.
Luis
* I say this as an Ubuntu user with a degree in political
science with
a focus in political theory from one of the best political
science
programs in the US, so I have some reasonable basis for
these claims.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-09 16:19:23 |
On 11/9/06, Luis Villa <luis.villagmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/9/06, David Berry <d.berrysussex.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Re: The iCommons Lab Report
> >
> > I had to laugh when I read the question of the
Governance of an 'open and
> > transparent' global community (page 1)- I presume
they mean iCommons.
> >
> > Who should iCommons ask for advice about setting
up this open structure of
> > governance? Sociologists? Political theorists?
Political scientists? Us?
> > Nope. --- They ask Hackers who release a
distribution of the Linux operating
> > system called Ubuntu. What?!? And they seem to be
taking this advice
> > seriously. I mean like, seriously.
>
> Ubuntu has built a functional global community of peer
producers which
> includes thousands of participants and a reasonably
functional
> self-governance system. Frankly, CC has not done that,
nor, to the
> best of my knowledge, have any sociologists, political
theorists, or
> political scientists.* Is it perfect? No. Is it well
informed by over
> a decade of experience in building functional
communities which
> combine the feedback of thousands of people with
sometimes very
> diverse goals ? Absolutely.
>
> So I'd not be so quick to dismiss what they've done
just because of
> who they are; if anything, they have a lot more
relevant applied
> practice than the groups you'd have us look to.
>
> Luis
>
> * I say this as an Ubuntu user with a degree in
political science with
> a focus in political theory from one of the best
political science
> programs in the US, so I have some reasonable basis for
these claims.
I might add that you assume that Ubuntu (and the
organizations that
precede and inspire Ubuntu, including Debian, Linux and
Apache) have
not gathered input from sociologists, political science, and
economists, when each of those groups have been extensively
studied by
all three of those groups and in many cases have learned
from the
feedback.
Luis
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-09 17:39:14 |
>
You make interesting points, however:
> Ubuntu has built a functional global community of peer
producers which
> includes thousands of participants and a reasonably
functional
> self-governance system.
What exactly is a 'reasonably functional self-governance
system'?
> Frankly, CC has not done that, nor, to the
> best of my knowledge, have any sociologists, political
theorists, or
> political scientists.*
Then you will realise the sociologists, political theorists
and
political scientists have each in their own way contributed
to the
project of understanding, explaining and attempting to
improve the
government of our societies. There is quite a lot of useful
theoretical, empirical and practical work that these
disciplines have
worked to produce which we should draw on.
> Is it perfect? No. Is it well informed by over
> a decade of experience in building functional
communities which
> combine the feedback of thousands of people with
sometimes very
> diverse goals ? Absolutely.
>
Yes, it is very interesting. But it is not democracy and
does not
require legitimacy. It is a technical project with a clearly
defined
goal and easy way of monitoring it. I can't see how that can
be a way
of understanding or explaining how iCommons - with its
claims of a
global creative commons or whatever - can function. But then
the
question I am asking is whether the iCommons has more in
common with
a technical/business project than a project with a
democratic mandate.
> So I'd not be so quick to dismiss what they've done
just because of
> who they are; if anything, they have a lot more
relevant applied
> practice than the groups you'd have us look to.
Applied practice of producing computer code. Not creating
legitimacy.
Running code - remember.
Best
David
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-10 08:34:27 |
|
Thanks for the comments.
Please note that the icommons lab report mailing list is *only* to distribute the magazine and not for discussion - discussion about icommons will take place on a new mailing list. cc has migrated the cc-icommons mailing list to the cc-community list.
Now for some points of clarification:
1. How the Code of Conduct came into being: On the 13th of July, there was a community meeting to discuss iCommons governance. At the meeting, the Community decided to contribute to a statement of values that would govern the community. In the July/August edition of the Lab Report I stated that we would be developing a similar 'Code of conduct' which might be a more practical way of looking at this, since it would govern the way that community members interact with one another in areas where we would collaborate (at the summit, in mailing lists, etc). The iCommons Code of Conduct (http://wiki.icommons.org/index.php/ICommons_Code_of_Conduct) has been here since 30 July and iCommons has always asked for comments and suggestions to its development and design.
We didn't run a vote for 3 reasons:
- setting up voting software that works well requires time and money; but more importantly: - the current community (those on the mailing list, that is) is mostly made up of people from the North - iCommons is currently working very hard to change that structure by applying for grants to build capacity in the South to advance these issues in a truly global fashion. Until then, we do not believe that we can leave it up to the 4/5 most vocal members of the community, all of whom come from the North, to be deciding the future of this global organisation. We have to start somewhere. And it is important to recognise that iCommons has been set up as a non-profit organisation - legally, it must have a board of directors that approve major decisions of the org. We are lucky, however, to have a board that is committed to working *with* rather than *against* the community on its direction. In this regard, I do not think that we're against you. - the Code of Conduct contains most of what was developed in the Core Values document in any case.
2. The iCommons Community Council will not be "voted" into power for the same reasons. We want to achieve a diverse range of individuals who are active in the community. Again, I do not think that the board will have major differences of opinion here. As indicated, the iCCC will act as an advisory board to iCommons. I, personally, hope that the iCCC actually *replaces* the Board in the long run. But as with all young organisations who are yet to grow their member base, we can't move to this stage before some important ground work has been done.
Also, just a point of clarification, iCommons has never claimed to be a 'global creative commons', our aims (very easy to find them on the icommons website) are: iCommons is an organisation with a broad vision to develop a united global commons front by collaborating with open content, access to knowledge, open access publishing and free culture communities around the world.
Above all, it is important to realise that iCommons does not want to become the next UN for the Commons. iCommons is not *just* a platform for discussion and debate - it is a platform for *action*. As such, we are very much about 'running code'. What we're striving for, above all else, is to run that code in a way that the community (both present and potential) believes in.
3. Ubuntu is just one of the communities that we applaud and admire. As you rightly say, Ubuntu is by no means the most democratic structure in the world, but it hosts a community that are committed to the achievement of their goal to develop a resource that will always be free to the world to use. iCommons is not just a stage for certain people to perform - it is an organisation that already has a number of projects on the go: the Lab Report, for example, happens because a number of committed individuals in the community actually spend hours doing this work. We want to learn from the open source movement so that everything we do is owned and driven by those who are actually involved in building the commons and not only talking about it. Everything that we do should end up being driven by that community.
I truly believe that the majority of the community are with us on this one.
But, as always, we're very open to suggestions of how to make this better. Start a discussion on the wiki, write something for the Lab Report, start a node: lets try and build this organisation into something important and relevant rather than shooting it down before we've even started.
Best, Heather.
On 09 Nov 2006, at 6:01 PM, David Berry wrote:
Re: The iCommons Lab Report
I had to laugh when I read the question of the Governance of an 'open and transparent' global community (page 1)- I presume they mean iCommons.
Who should iCommons ask for advice about setting up this open structure of governance? Sociologists? Political theorists? Political scientists? Us? Nope. --- They ask Hackers who release a distribution of the Linux operating system called Ubuntu. What?!? And they seem to be taking this advice seriously. I mean like, seriously.
Which bring us to...
How was the iCommons Code of Conduct passed (page 2)? I didn't see a vote, debate (beyond the wiki) or any of the so called 'open and transparent governance and processes' that are listed as a core value and principle... is this an example of 'consensus and running code'? I really wonder why certain things are missing (fairtrade/human rights anyone?) and who decided what was in and what was out... and how do we change it if we don't like it?
What is even weirder is the iCommons community council (iCCC) which is open for nominations (good), but then selected by iCommons Board which will make the final decision of the 9-13 iCCC members (not so good - why the shifting number? what power will it have?). This doesn't sound particularly open or transparent - how will we know the criteria for selection? Will the decision be made in public (i.e. we can attend the meeting as observers?)? Why can't the iCommons nodes who nominate vote? After all to quote from the iCommons Code of Conduct it is important that we 'avoid conflicts of interest' which requires clear procedures and processes to guide the election (if that is what it is). Where are they? Who decides?
A shame that 'open' and 'democratic' are traveling in different directions.
iCommons, the world is watching... and you are creating a corporate machine rather than a democratic one... is that what all the iCommoners, free culture and assorted supporters want? Success for Creative Commons/free culture is one thing, but lets not lose sight that the Means are just as important as the Ends.
David
------
iCommons Code of Conduct: The Text iCommons and the iCommons nodes adhere to these core values and principles: · iCommoners are respectful of the diversity of creativity and of intellectual thought. We are a diverse group of people - from civil society, business and governments; from the North and the South; from politically diverse backgrounds and cultures. We know that this kind of diversity is found in very few places, that it requires a very special kind of respect - and that we are especially mindful of this because it is our greatest strength. · iCommoners collaborate and help one another. Because we are a global commons movement, we recognise that not every community has the same level of connectivity/support etc, and as such, we recognise how important it is to collaborate with those from diverse cultural/political/economic contexts. We recognise that developing true partnerships between communities in the North and South is as important as developing cutting edge products and services. · iCommoners are committed to ensuring the freedom of societies to create, build upon and share the world's knowledge, culture and science. iCommoners believe that, because this freedom is essential to the freedom of expression, that we will promote the highest levels of open access to intellectual products for organisations and individuals - especially those with a public mandate. · iCommoners employ open and transparent governance and processes. Transparency is important because it encourages communal ownership of the iCommons network, allows us to learn from one another, helps and helps to avoid conflicts of interest. iCommoners will adopt transparent governance procedures without disrespecting individual privacy rights. _______________________________________________ cc-community mailing list cc-communi tylists.ibiblio.org">cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
Heather Ford Executive Director: iCommons
iCommons Summit, Dubrovnik, Croatia: 15-17 June, 2007
Phone: +27 11 327 3155 queenbea878: AOL 243161375: ICQ heatherford: skype
www.icommons.org
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-11 23:16:40 |
Ahoy,
On Friday 10 November 2006 08:34, Heather Ford wrote:
> 1. How the Code of Conduct came into being: On the 13th
of July,
> there was a community meeting to discuss iCommons
governance. At the
> meeting, the Community decided to contribute to a
statement of
> values that would govern the community. In the
July/August edition of
> the Lab Report I stated that we would be developing a
similar 'Code
> of conduct' which might be a more practical way of
looking at this,
> since it would govern the way that community members
interact with
> one another in areas where we would collaborate (at the
summit, in
> mailing lists, etc). The iCommons Code of Conduct
(http://
> wiki.icommons.org/index.php/ICommons_Code_of_Conduct)
has been here
> since 30 July and iCommons has always asked for
comments and
> suggestions to its development and design.
I must have missed this decision, can we read a fuller
explanation of why it
was made and on what basis the code of conduct was drawn up?
It looks "fit
for purpose", as it were, but it falls short of the
core values statement
that was discussed in July. For example, one of my main
reasons for wanting
the core values statement was to provide a basis for
decisions about
fundraising and purchasing, and the code of conduct is both
inadequate and
inappropriate for such a task.
> - the current community (those on the mailing list,
that is) is
> mostly made up of people from the North - iCommons is
currently
> working very hard to change that structure by applying
for grants to
> build capacity in the South to advance these issues in
a truly global
> fashion. Until then, we do not believe that we can
leave it up to the
> 4/5 most vocal members of the community, all of whom
come from the
> North, to be deciding the future of this global
organisation.
That's a good reason to be cautious about handing control to
a fairly
homogenous bunch of people on a mailing list. But it'd be
helpful if you (the
board) could explain further the vision of the community
that iCommons will
end up being. Who will it include, and at what stage will
this community
start to take more control?
It's all very well asking for people to trust you, but so
far we've been
offered little reason to, and I know a lot of people are
frustrated at having
to wait for a genuine grassroots organisation where we can
build and
organise. We already have one autocratic organisation - CC -
which goes some
way towards explaining tempers.
Anyway, caution is one thing, but I think it would be very
helpful, and
principled, if the board could be a bit more transparent,
and seek more input
from the community. Not everybody can follow the wiki edits
to know what's
going on. More at the end of the email...
> 2. The iCommons Community Council will not be
"voted" into power for
> the same reasons. We want to achieve a diverse range of
individuals
> who are active in the community. Again, I do not think
that the board
> will have major differences of opinion here. As
indicated, the iCCC
> will act as an advisory board to iCommons. I,
personally, hope that
> the iCCC actually *replaces* the Board in the long run.
But as with
> all young organisations who are yet to grow their
member base, we
> can't move to this stage before some important ground
work has been
> done.
What important ground work? Lots of people here have
experience in starting up
grassroots organisations, myself included, so I'd be
interested to hear a
fuller explanation of this. I would have thought that
gaining the full
participation of the community, and empowering the
grassroots, would be the
best way to gain trust and interest.
> Above all, it is important to realise that iCommons
does not want to
> become the next UN for the Commons. iCommons is not
*just* a platform
> for discussion and debate - it is a platform for
*action*. As such,
> we are very much about 'running code'. What we're
striving for, above
> all else, is to run that code in a way that the
community (both
> present and potential) believes in.
I'd personally love iCommons to become the UN of the
commons, because slander
aside the UN *does* an awful lot. UNICEF saves the lives of
millions of
children, UNAIDS rallies reluctant governments to commit aid
and diplomatic
muscle, whilst the assembly allows countries a rare chance
to debate openly.
Anyway, analogies aside I think we agree that iCommons needs
to be about
action and reflection, healthy division and unity.
My vision of iCommons is a grassroots-led organisation that
builds a movement,
supplementing the legal/code tools-based hierarchical
approach of CC with a
democratic space and organisational muscle.
> But, as always, we're very open to suggestions of how
to make this
> better. Start a discussion on the wiki, write something
for the Lab
> Report, start a node: lets try and build this
organisation into
> something important and relevant rather than shooting
it down before
> we've even started.
Shouting down does suck, but I'd prefer if we could find a
way to discuss
things properly. Wikis have their place but they've been
pretty hopeless so
far in stimulating and facilitating good discussions.
If we could define what we mean by "the iCommons
community" (i.e. institute a
membership scheme with a public register) then claims such
as "the majority
of the community are with us" would appear less
fraudulent. We could all be
sure that "the community" has indeed properly
discussed documents such as the
code of conduct, and that it met no serious resistance; and
that "the
community" is OK with the board acting as a temporary
benevolent dictator
until the ground work is completed for a democratic
takeover. It would also
help us to guage the level of participation in important
discussions, and
better understand what we should be aiming for.
If the board could circulate information about decisions
made, with proper
explanations, to this list then we'd have less of the
bombshell factor when
proclamations are handed down. I'm confident that the board
members are all
committed to being open and helpful; as David alludes to,
intentions are one
thing but a lack of clear democratic structure to carry them
through is quite
another.
Finally, if we could be assured that the community (once
defined) will have
the opportunity to take control completely at the next
iSummit (i.e. the iCCC
replaces the board or gains certain ultimate powers), then
the sense that
we're investing energy in something we have no control over
would be
mitigated.
Kind regards,
Tom
--
The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against
forgetting
- Kundera
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-11 23:59:22 |
Quoting Heather Ford <hfordsagmail.com>:
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> Please note that the icommons lab report mailing list
is *only* to
> distribute the magazine and not for discussion -
discussion about
> icommons will take place on a new mailing list. cc has
migrated the
> cc-icommons mailing list to the cc-community list.
>
Quick comment: I was just wondering if the iCommons list
demographic was in fact
the same as that of the CC-community list. It may very well
be, but I do see
iCommons as being more expansive than CC alone (as in,
dealing with issues
beyond just CC), and perhaps not all of the members of CC
community are
interested in iCommons-specific issues? At the same time,
merging the two might
be a good way to broaden the scope of the iCommons
community.
I do realize that originally iCommons had been what is now
CC-i, so perhaps this
affected the decision to merge iC with CC-c.
I did see some value in having an iCommons-specific list,
but perhaps cc-c will
serve to embody this.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-12 09:11:36 |
To add to what Elizabeth just said, a short observation:
cc-community is
as funny a name as cc-icommons for a list devoted to
icommons. this is
quite convoluted. i liked the "cc-icommons" name,
as it disclosed the cc
roots of icommons. but if I understand CC would prefer to
make icommons
into a structure more "generic" than the origial
CC - iCommons coupling.
But then calling an icommons-oriented list
"cc-community" does not make
too much sense!
i think this should be somehow cleared up.
best,
Alek
--
koordynator / Public Lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland
(+48) 889 660 444
http://creativecommons.pl
skype:alektarkowski
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-12 12:02:18 |
On Sunday 12 November 2006 04:11 am, Alek Tarkowski wrote:
> To add to what Elizabeth just said, a short
observation: cc-community is
> as funny a name as cc-icommons for a list devoted to
icommons.
The thing is, and it is not clear from your post that you
are aware of this,
cc-community is a tlist that is not actually
"devoted" to icommons.
CC-community has existed for a good while now and there are
a good number of
us on it. Personally, I am not even sure what icommons is. I
do remember
going to the site and poking around but not going much
deeper than that.
Exactly what it is is not in my memory in such a way that I
can easily bring
it to the fore.
> this is
> quite convoluted. i liked the "cc-icommons"
name, as it disclosed the cc
> roots of icommons. but if I understand CC would prefer
to make icommons
> into a structure more "generic" than the
origial CC - iCommons coupling.
> But then calling an icommons-oriented list
"cc-community" does not make
> too much sense!
> i think this should be somehow cleared up.
Clarity is always nice.
>
> best,
>
> Alek
all the best,
drew
--
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
http://www.nanowri
mo.org/index.php
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
|
| The iCommons Lab Report |
|
2006-11-12 16:49:42 |
Elizabeth Stark wrote:
> Quoting Heather Ford <hfordsagmail.com>:
>
>> Thanks for the comments.
>>
>> Please note that the icommons lab report mailing
list is *only* to
>> distribute the magazine and not for discussion -
discussion about
>> icommons will take place on a new mailing list. cc
has migrated the
>> cc-icommons mailing list to the cc-community list.
>>
> Quick comment: I was just wondering if the iCommons
list demographic was in fact
> the same as that of the CC-community list.
It is in my case but I'm not sure that is is generally.
cc-community is for general CC discussion.
icommons is for discussing icommons.
The two constituencies overlap but are not the same by any
means.
iCommons will presumably continue to need a public
discussion forum, and
CC's mailing list members will presumably continue to need
somewhere to
chat about issues that aren't directly related to licenses.
There is no reason why icommons should not have a mailing
list at
ibiblio, and I don't think merging the two lists is a good
idea.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
|
|
|