[cc-community] The iCommons Lab Report

Tom Chance tom at acrewoods.net
Sat Nov 11 18:16:40 EST 2006


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


More information about the cc-community mailing list