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