Dear Friends,
At the Leipzig meeting I had suggested creating a taxonomy that would be compatible with the taxonomy developed at the Commons Abundance Network, which is working on creating in-depth assessments of the systemic interactions and strengths and weaknesses of a variety of approaches to managing our common resources, and offers discussion forums on these topics. I still think this would be a good thing.
1. Air. If we fail to create effective commons for air and atmosphere, our climate system breaks down.
2. Water. Some exiting commons exist in this area, such as community-organized water distribution systems, water cooperatives. One should also consider municipally managed water distribution systems if they are organized with effective public control. And again, water is essential for life ("beverage" does not cover water - water is more fundamental, and is used for more than drinking; I´d say that beverages like juices, beer etc. are better included with food).
3. Being at home. This is more than just about having shelter - it´s about having a place where one fels at home. It´s a more diffuse type of commons, but I don´t think it should be ignored.
4. Supportive relationships - the community category may cover this, though I´m not sure. Any person creates a web or network of relationships, associating with some people for one area of life, with another group (that may or may not overlap with the first) for another area of life, etc. They do not all need to be one community.
5. Self-expression. Not listed at all in the present listing. I think that many arts-oriented initiatives should come under this heading.
6. Opportunities to learn. This is a more general category than "skills" or "knowledge" (the latter of which CAN lists as a resource rather than a need). The way "skills" are usually defined in our culture, we talk about more or less technical skills (how to do something). Knowledge, again as defined in our culture, usually refers to theoretical knowledge. There are also further things we can learn that do not fit either category, such as "phronesis" - knowing how to act under specific circumstances, based on lived experience, and involving value rationality. This is vital in commoning. So, I think it is important NOT to reduce learning to skills and knowledge alone.
7. Meaningful livelihoods. It is part of the crisis of our civilization that livelihoods all too often are not at all meaningful (what we find meaningful often does not allow us to make a living; what does provide lots of income is often extremely lacking in meaning). Commons can help to bring these two together. We also need to rethink work when production of many material things in our households requires less and less work.
8. Contemplative/spiritual connection. This I have not yet developed properly, but I do consider this an important need, and it should in some way be accommodated. Here I think it would be interesting to look for groups that pursue this in non-hierarchical ways that do not dictate which outcomes are supposed to emerge.
The CAN list also includes items listed as "resources" which partially overlaps with the list of needs both in CAN and the Transformap listing. Air and Atmosphere and Water I have already mentioned. Here are several more:
9. Minerals. This is different from "land" in that we are talking about such things as iron, potassium, rare earth minerals etc. which are either needed in an industrial economy, or to maintain soil fertility. Here also it is important to think about how mineral resources could be managed as commons, such that for example the mining of lithium in the Andes benefits the ordinary people there and not just some big corporations.
10. Living things. This is a vast category, but we depend on other living things in a myriad of ways that go far beyond the food and beverage categories. This includes for example community-managed conservation areas.
11. Physical, human-made assets. This is a category that is far wider than "objects of utility"; it includes transportation networks, energy and communication utilities, buildings and assemblages of buildings (up to entire settlements, i.e. cities). I am referring here to the actual physical assets here, not just the services that they provide on a daily basis. All these can be run as commons.
12. Intangibles. This includes knowledge, but also such things as trust. How can we build, or rebuild, trust? I think this is a vital question.
I would be happy to have a session with one or several of you to talk through these categories, for example using a Skype session. If we can make the CAN and Transformap taxonomies compatible, I think it would be great because the Transformap could show where all kinds of initiatives are located while CAN could provide reflective assessments and discussion forums about them.
Please also note that if some of these categories are "empty sets" (there aren´t any mapped initiatives that fall into the category), I do not see this as a valid reason for not including them. Empty categories tell us either that this is an area where mapping still needs to take place, or that this is something where new forms of commons organization still need to be developed. Noting gaps of this kind is essential for pushing forward the movement.
Further remarks regarding taxonomies - every kind of activity as reviewed in the CAN is seen as serving several needs, using several resources, and typically falling into several clusters of organizational forms (I haven´t gone through modes of organization at Transformap here, because each of these address attributes of many different organizational forms as categorized in CAN). Many different kinds of initiatives can address the same needs, or utilize the same kinds of resources. The tags for types of initiatives thus have to be in addition to tags for needs etc. I think this is already there in the structure for Transformap, but just think it needs to be made clear.
All the best,
Wolfgang
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [maps] Taxonomie -> Auf zum Endspurt, Jetzt!
From: Adrien Labaeye <
adrienlabaeye@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, September 23, 2014 4:51 pm
To: Silke Helfrich <
silke.helfrich@gmx.de>
Cc: 14mmm_temporär <
maps@list.allmende.io>
Dear Silke, Dear all,
Thanks a lot for this comprehensive report (even if I'm not understanding everything). I see information related to the testing of the taxonomy highly relevant to non-German speakers. Therefore, could we make sure that future communications (and especially suporting documentation) is made directly into English to be as inclusive as possible?
I can personally check the French translation once available.
A specific question: can one add tags to an existing point in OSM (eg. Thinkfarm Berlin) instead of adding a new point alltogether? (Please point me to the place - FAQ - where this type of questions are answered if there is already such a place)
We have refined and packaged the list of activities to be covered by our proposal and are switching into writing mode. We are thinking of a consortium as small as possible with 2 partners (success of the proposal will depend on that). We also generally agree that all deliverables should be open source (and include reciprocity when/if possible) and not reinvent the wheel when there is available code.
At this stage we are concentrating on writing up the proposal. Of course though, focused addition of activities are still welcome. Please if you would like to contribute, first take the time to have a look at the documentation starting from the Trello card. The deadline is very tight and at this stage we need a really focused effort. :) Best ask on the Trello if you are not sure whether and how you should plug in.
Kind regards,
Herzliche Grüsse,
Adrien
_______________________________________________
maps mailing list
maps@list.allmende.io
http://list.allmende.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/maps