From adb1bb4cc6d5e126b3a4cafe646f2e1e3e65de38 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kevin Harrington Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2025 07:34:57 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] adding some content --- ScopeSequencing.tex | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) diff --git a/ScopeSequencing.tex b/ScopeSequencing.tex index c2de160..c12e6a8 100644 --- a/ScopeSequencing.tex +++ b/ScopeSequencing.tex @@ -166,10 +166,24 @@ By durable we mean an organization that is intended to have stability long after \subsection{How does an organization have durability?} +When organizers create a structure that adds the design features of a stable commons. We can see a breakdown of these design principals in section 2. + +When decisions are made through a consensus process. We can see a breakdown of the consensus process in section 4. + +When members have trust and mutual aid with each other. We can see a process for boot-strapping trust in section 6. + \subsection{How does an organization lack durability?} +When members have a shareholder model then there needs to be a cash-out process. Cash-outs can destabilize an organization. + +When an organization is transitioned from one generation to the next as ownership, there is a problem where the inheritors may not be interested in participation, and so would need to exit the organization. Members exiting without a desire to maintain stability can cause destabilization. + \subsection{Why are commons durable?} +Commons, if designed well, and governed well, could be a much more stable structure. In the first generation, both a commons and a cooperatively owned business have similar benefits and stability to the members. The generational turnover is very different. A commons will use the decision making process established to accept new members when a previous member leaves or passes away. Allowing the commons to decide who to include in future operation stabilizes the organization. + + + \pagebreak