Enclosed Organizations Vs Networks and Commons
Hi Noemi,
I do not requestion people’s good will and good intentions.
I want to understand more precisely what is what, and want everyone to understand it.
Please process and take into account in your replies the arguments I put forward, including in terms of governance, and branding.
Thanks for the link - although unfortunatly it is enclosed / hidden / accessible only to some people ?
/t/lab-experimenting-with-new-business-models-together/456
It says, for me “Access denied - You are not authorized to access this page.”
One of the main issues I see, is that there is an attempt to define Edgeryders not merely as a forum ( this forum ),
but as a hierarchical organization that can speak in the name of networks of people.
This is, in my opinion, an aspect that needs to be corrected in priority.
The branding needs to become less fuzzy, and more precise.
I suggested potential approaches and solutions on this thread :
https://edgeryders.eu/comment/6621#comment-6621
https://edgeryders.eu/comment/6630#comment-6630
I personally have no issues about people doing what they want to do, as long as it is not in the name of others who did not consent to it.
I personally suggested in last posts to differentiate between organizations and networks, and suggest, if there are enclosures, that they be clearly defined and branded, while enabling transparency as to what exactly such enclosures support and in whose or what interests,
and then understand if they support certain intentional commons, or not.
If there are enclosures, I would hope they would feed the development of intentional commons without attempting to enclose commons.
From my point of perspective, the objective is the intentional commons.
If the priority of some people is to earn money, it needs to be clearly expressed in what way they intend to earn money.
Imho it is important this is done in their own name, or in the name of an entity that clearly expresses its intent.
The organization that converges facilitators, a core group of people who get paid, can imho be called differently then the networks.
The organizations of people who attempt to develop infrastructure, while being paid for it, can seek recognition for their contributions,
while making the infrastructure they develop available to a commons. Yet it is good to clarify that such entities do not represent such commons, and the networks active in such commons.