Kacper/HowToBuildACommonsWorkbooks
1
0
Fork 0
forked from How_to_Build_a_Commons/HowToBuildACommonsWorkbooks
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'main' of

Browse source 
git@github.com:How-To-Build-a-Commons/Scope-Sequencing.git into
kh/makercheck
This commit is contained in:
Kevin Harrington 2025-10-13 14:00:37 -04:00
commit 1b2ea0f4f5
1 changed files with 73 additions and 90 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

159
ScopeSequencing.tex
View file

@ -45,7 +45,12 @@
\usepackage{multicol}
\begin{document}
\fontsize{8}{9}\selectfont
{\centering \huge \textbf{Building A Common}\par}
\pagebreak
@ -88,66 +93,61 @@
\end{multicols}
\pagebreak
{\centering \huge \textbf{What is a Common?}\par}
\section{What is a Common}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Governing the Commons by Ellinor Ostrum Table 3.1: Design principles illustrated by long-enduring CPR institutions
{\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{1. Clearly defined boundaries}
\begin{enumerate}
\item {Clearly defined boundaries}
Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions}
\item{ Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions}
Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and to provision rules requiring labor, material, and/or money.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{3. Collective-choice arrangements}
\item{Collective-choice arrangements}
Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{4. Monitoring}
\item{Monitoring}
Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriator behavior, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{5. Graduated sanctions}
\item{Graduated sanctions}
Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms}
\item{Conflict-resolution mechanisms}
Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize}
\item{Minimal recognition of rights to organize}
The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.
For CPRs that are parts of larger systems:
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{8. Nested enterprises}
\item{Nested enterprises}
Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.
\par}
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Always remember that building a cooperative is a step-by-step process. You will start with whatever resources and rules you have, and add to the framework over time. The whole idea is to have the rules reflect the needs of the members of the cooperative. We are all screw-ups some times, and that is ok! We can always evolve our systems over time and bring them in line with our shared values.
@ -155,8 +155,8 @@ Always remember that building a cooperative is a step-by-step process. You will
\pagebreak
{\centering \huge \textbf{What is Consensus Process?}\par}
\section{What is Consensus Process?}
Consensus is a process where everyone should be able to weigh in equally on a decision, and no one should be bound by a decision they detest."
this boils doing in practice to: Everyone who feels they have something relevant to say about a proposal ought to have their perspectives carefully considered.
@ -167,72 +167,45 @@ Anyone who feels a proposal violates a fundamental principle shared by the group
No one should be forced to go along with a decision to which they did not assent.
\vspace{0.2cm}
The process follows a looping structure. That structure is describe below.
{\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\textbf{1)} someone makes a proposal for a certain course of action
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{2)} the facilitator asks for clarifying questions to make sure everyone understands precisely what is being proposed
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{3)} the facilitator asks for concerns
{\leftskip=1cm
\indent \textbf{3.1)} during the discussion those with concerns may suggest friendly amendments to the proposal to address the concern, which the person originally bringing the proposal may or may not adopt
\indent \textbf{3.2)} there may or may not be a temperature check about the proposal, an amendment, or the seriousness of a concern
\indent \textbf{3.3)} in the course of this the proposal might be scotched, reformulated, combined with other proposals, broken into pieces, or tabled for later discussion.
\par}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{4)} the facilitator checks for consensus by:
{\leftskip=1cm
\textbf{4.1)} asking if there are any stand-asides. By standing aside one is saying “I don’t like this idea, and wouldn’t take part in the action, but I’m not willing to stop others from doing so”. It is always important to allow all those who stand aside to have a chance to explain why they are doing so.
\textbf{4.2)} asking if there are any blocks. A block is not a “no” vote. It is much more like a veto. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that it allows anyone in the group to temporarily don the robes of a Supreme Court justice and strike down a piece of legislation they consider unconstitutional; or, in this casein violation of the fundamental principles of unity or purpose of being of the group. I should note that the usual language in Occupy Wall Street is that a block has to be based on a “moral, ethical, or safety concern that’s so strong you’d consider leaving the movement were the proposal to go forward”.
\par}
\par}
\begin{enumerate}[]
\item someone makes a proposal for a certain course of action
\item the facilitator asks for clarifying questions to make sure everyone understands precisely what is being proposed
\item the facilitator asks for concerns
\begin{enumerate}
\item during the discussion those with concerns may suggest friendly amendments to the proposal to address the concern, which the person originally bringing the proposal may or may not adopt
\item there may or may not be a temperature check about the proposal, an amendment, or the seriousness of a concern
\item in the course of this the proposal might be scotched, reformulated, combined with other proposals, broken into pieces, or tabled for later discussion.
\end{enumerate}
\item the facilitator checks for consensus by:
\begin{enumerate}
\item asking if there are any stand-asides. By standing aside one is saying “I don’t like this idea, and wouldn’t take part in the action, but I’m not willing to stop others from doing so”. It is always important to allow all those who stand aside to have a chance to explain why they are doing so.
\item asking if there are any blocks. A block is not a “no” vote. It is much more like a veto. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that it allows anyone in the group to temporarily don the robes of a Supreme Court justice and strike down a piece of legislation they consider unconstitutional; or, in this casein violation of the fundamental principles of unity or purpose of being of the group.{42},
Footnote {42} I should note that the usual language in Occupy Wall Street is that a block has to be based on a “moral, ethical, or safety concern that’s so strong you’d consider leaving the movement were the proposal to go forward”.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\pagebreak
{\centering \huge \textbf{Why Build a Common?}\par}
\section{Why Build a Common?}
From the Yana Ludwig reading:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Spiritual or Religious}
\item \textbf{Cultural Preservation}
\item \textbf{Social Experimentation}
\item \textbf{Service-based}
\item \textbf{Economic Security}
\item \textbf{Identity-based Safe Havens}
\item \textbf{Lifestyle and Comfort Enhancement}
\item \textbf{Ecological Sustainability}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Spiritual or Religious}
\subsection{Cultural Preservation}
\subsection{Social Experimentation}
\subsection{Service-based}
\subsection{Economic Security}
\subsection{Identity-based Safe Havens}
\subsection{Lifestyle and Comfort Enhancement}
\subsection{Ecological Sustainability}
\pagebreak
{\centering \huge \textbf{What is Property?}\par}
\vspace{0.2cm}
{\centering \large \textbf{Legal Definitions:}\par}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\section{What is Property?}
\subsection{ Legal Definitions}:
This category is referred to as "Private Property" and is a collection of a few distinct rights. These are the rights enforced by and recognized by law.
@ -248,26 +221,25 @@ This category is referred to as "Private Property" and is a collection of a few
\end{enumerate}
{\centering \large \textbf{Categories in a Commons:}\par}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{Categories in a Commons}
Within a Commons, once the external entity has been assigned Private Property rights within the law, then that "bubble" can ascribe the rights according to its own rules. The commons can allocate areas of the pieces of the physical world that it manages (the clearly defined boundaries). The allocations can be for consumed aspects (the increase), it can be to assign use terms (Usufruct), and it can determine to what degree exclusion and destruction are used within the commons.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Personal Property}: The items or space that is exclusively assigned along the legal definition. These can be either private property that came with someone into the commons, or can be the appropriators allocated share of some bounty.
\subsection{Personal Property}: The items or space that is exclusively assigned along the legal definition. These can be either private property that came with someone into the commons, or can be the appropriators allocated share of some bounty.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Commons Space}: This is the piece of the physical world that may have Usufruct allocated to members, or the public. These generally have the right of destruction held withing the commons (for repairs and upgrades). The right to exclude is also held by the commons itself to determine if and when people can or will be excluded.
\subsection{Commons Space}: This is the piece of the physical world that may have Usufruct allocated to members, or the public. These generally have the right of destruction held withing the commons (for repairs and upgrades). The right to exclude is also held by the commons itself to determine if and when people can or will be excluded.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Public Space}: This is space held by the state that assigned property rights. Examples would be the roads, infrastructure and public lands such as parks.
\subsection{Public Space}: This is space held by the state that assigned property rights. Examples would be the roads, infrastructure and public lands such as parks.
\pagebreak
{\huge \textbf{What We Owe to Each Other}}
{\section{What We Owe to Each Other}}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.72\textwidth}
\vspace{0pt}
@ -326,13 +298,16 @@ Within a Commons, once the external entity has been assigned Private Property ri
\end{minipage}
%End of the check
\pagebreak
\linedpagetwo
\pagebreak
{\centering \huge \textbf{HOWTO Build Common - Workshop} \par}
\section{HOW-TO Build Common Workshop}
Lets imagine we would actually like to put these ideas into practice.
@ -365,7 +340,15 @@ Workshop 3
\pagebreak
{\centering \huge \textbf{A Call To Action} \par}
Workshop 4
\linedpage
\vspace{1cm}
\pagebreak
\section{A Call To Action}
{\fontsize{11pt}{11pt}\selectfont
I don't want to run a business. I don't want to manage or profit from