Proposed initial meet-up

Hi guys, great discussion. I haven't spoken to the others, but this is very encouraging. As way of feedback I want you to take something into consideration that we've been discussing.

We created the International Social Charter mainly for specific P2PF affiliated, offshoots but, the focus, until now, has been on language-specific initiatives (ie: French, Greek, Korea). Without dismissing the use of other languages in UK territory, that doesn't seem to be what's going on here, so I'm curious about how you see the scope of the initiative (Scotland, Edinburgh, UK?).

The P2PF core team got together in my village last week and we discussed some of this. There is another initiative called the Commons Transition Coalition and they operate mainly in Melbourne, but also in other parts of Australia. Examining the differences, we saw that the CT coalition was more "independent", they organize meet ups and events and use some of our materials, but it's a very loose affiliation. So, one of the things we've been discussing is to offer the name "Commons Transition" to make "Commons Transition Circles" where people can discuss not only our wok, but the P2P/Commons and other related movements together.

As I say, this is a new idea so we'd appreciate your input. To clarify some of this I was looking through our page on the P2PF Network where we've tried to clarify roles and whatnot. To me a P2PF-X initiative falls more under "members" and research, upkeep of a P2PF blog and other more concrete projects, while a Commons Transition Circle would correspond with "affiliates" as a much looser and self-organized initiative. In practice this can be porous, but I'd like to get your feedback, both about this distinction and also about your own role/identity. This is all very much in development.

Also, to be totally clear, as this has been asked elsewhere. We're currently just breaking even so we can't fund any other P2PF or CT phyles. Hopefully that will change in the future but, at present, there is no funding available or planned for this. We will, however, try to support you as best as we're able, incorporate and promote any outputs in our knowledge commons etc.

Hi again @staccotroncoso to me the idea of the looser Commons Transition Coalition and constituent Commons Transition Circles are really good! (But can we have it somewhere that isn't Facebook, please?)

The distinction you draw out fits very well with the distinction I make between networking organisations, where the more people there are the better, and working organisations, where the numbers need to be carefully controlled. The Circles themselves aren't working organisations, I realise, and the point of having circles in my mind is for people to integrate better with more of a sense of immediate belonging.

We could therefore start up Common Transition Coalition Scotland, or UK, and Edinburgh could be one of the Circles.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you say, Simon and that's a very useful distinction. As to the "where" that's up to you guys. I personally prefer Loomio, but people like the Commons Transition Coalition organize through FB. You may get to the surreal situation of using Loomio to vote on whether to use Loomio or go to Facebook! I don't buy the "Loomio is too complicated line", it isn't, Facebook is more complicated but people stick with it to learn how it works because of the network effect.

Hi Stacco :) @staccotroncoso I'd like to speak to this not from the Scottish perspective, where I'm an interested close bystander, but from what I would appreciate in the north or north west of England. It is possible to "get to know" people to an extent on-line, but I suspect we all understand how much easier and potentially deeper it is to have face-to-face dialogue. Thus, I see the great value of regional groupings in facilitating people actually meeting up in person, and in getting to know each other and respect each others' work, values, motivations, in a way that is so much easier when you have the high bandwidth of face-to-face.

As I've said before, I see this also as a chance to cross the artificial organisational and brand boundaries. People who see themselves as primarily in line with P2P2 and CT can get to know, for instance, those who are already in Transition Towns, or monetary reform (like Positive Money or MMT) or the co-operative movement (and many more, that's the point). I like Michel's point about the particular values of the P2PF, that if we want to use the brand name we need to embody the particular brand values, and that makes complete sense. And it's great that the International Social Charter expects people to be collaborating with other groups on the ground. ("Local Context and Collaborations")

In my view (which I've shared with Nick @wulee ) this personal face-to-face knowledge of each other can go a long way towards building a durable trust, and avoiding the kinds of fallout and splintering which we see all to often in radical and activist movements. Having this kind of deep network of trust can also help direct newcomers to meet with others where there will be a genuine synergy based on shared values -- because it is the values and motivations that come through clearest when there is that extensive face-to-face interaction.

I think, for example, of the great bunch of folk who share in the co-housing community I live with. Because of all the interaction we have, I know immediately who will be interested in any particular kind of initiative. The issue here is simply that there are not enough of us with enough spare capacity to build effective externally-directed working groups, unless already constituted as an external organisation (such as Scientists for Global Responsibility). This is then where an open network comes in most useful, to provide the means of people linking up to do whatever real work they can help each other with.

If the P2PF/CT brand can help both to propagate the P2PF philosophy and to act as this connection network, that strikes me as a win-win all round.

And as a afterthought, this kind of regional organisation fits in perfectly with the city / region as the focus for action, rather than the nation state.

Hi Stacco, Simon, all...

Re: ‘Circles’

I am in favour in principle pending a few definitions of terms - as mentioned by Elspeth.

This may have been thought through better than I will now attempt - but still, needed, now:

1. I’d like to loosely define ‘Peers’ as a ‘common interest group’; people who may or may not ‘come together’ in some way but who share a common interest.

2. Peers who do come together around a common interest may form working groups and organisations.

3. Organisations around common interests will form values, missions and goals.

4. Values, missions and goals may be ‘at odds’ with Commons Transition Circles, whether ‘working’ or ‘networking’.

5. Commons Transition Circles need a guiding set of principles to endorse or affiliate with other groups.

6. Presumably, this set of principles is the Int. Social Charter?

7. Would this document suffice or should it serve as a template for something new?

8. The reason I ask is that I am starting a practice I call CultureBanking in response to a broad system of funding, very dominantly, organisations, who presume to represent groups of people - peers - but who do not. Hence my seeking processes which aim to instigate and support peer to peer activity.

Two proposed terms for a Transition Circle:

1. One of my proposed terms and conditions is related to Elspeth’s Rights Of The Child point: To be ‘eligible’ -? - to be part of a Commons Transition Circle, in line with ROTC, any organisation who serve or represent a common interest group must maintain and actively promote an invitation to that interest group, to participate in the governance, planning and delivery of its services.

2. Since the above term only goes as far as promoting representative democracy in administration of services, which is not the same as participatory or direct democracy and doesn’t encourage ownership of services by users, a second term should be introduced which requires some auditing or evaluation, at the very least, of the possibility of users owning and/or running that service or organisation - hence the transition!

I suspect this has all been thought through but I hope it’s useful to someone if I do my thinking in public.

Comments welcome.

• Re UK, Scotland, Regional etc: My preference, for what it’s worth, would be to start with a UK group - to match other admin systems - and then break it down to regions as it grows. I’m part of What Next? who are not, in theory, governed by a ‘National Group’, but do have an admin team at that level to engage with policy, ministers etc. I’ve no problem with a UK group based in Edinburgh, but would suggest borders are artificial in this agenda and that a co-ordinating group would be language based ( English and Gaelics ?) whilst the circles themselves, as Simon suggested, might be more localised.

I would massively welcome some opportunity to identify my activities with ‘P2P and/or Commins Transition’ so very keen to make this happen to grow awareness and practice.

All best..

Liam

Heya Liam. From our side (P2PF) it hasn't been very thoughtfully planned, so this thread is great. In general, regarding "circles" (or "networking" affiliations are Simon calls them) I think these should be as autonomous as possible and, instead of "one" charter demanded by the P2PF, each cirlce could have it's own charter etc... and not a set one either, but one which evolves with the community, including the possibility of forking.

I'm not personally invested in finding a definition of "Peer" per se. I think that it will mean different things to different people. Here is one perspective in the wiki; for me a Peer is an equipotential node in an network whose existence doesn't make sense in isolation: the Peer becomes a peer through relations.

Peers who do come together around a common interest may form working groups and organisations.

Or, come together and form a Commons.

Values, missions and goals may be ‘at odds’ with Commons Transition Circles, whether ‘working’ or ‘networking’.

Which is fine. For us the goal is to make more commoners. If people want to use the name P2PF or Commons Transition, great! But it's the practice that matters, whatever the name - and there's always forking, of course.

Commons Transition Circles need a guiding set of principles to endorse or affiliate with other groups. Presumably, this set of principles is the Int. Social Charter?

I think it can be a starting point, but my feeling is that the circles should be low-entry and as opt-in as possible. For Circles I'd leave off: "Able and willing to share the P2P Foundation message in ways relevant to the local contexts (cultural/linguistic)." in preference of a broader "Commons" message. I'd ignore the "Organization Strategy" demands and the "Identification" and "Actions" sections.

Would this document suffice or should it serve as a template for something new?

As I said, it's a starting point. We should write up something specific for circles, but I'm more interested on waiting and reflecting/reacting to whatever you guys come up with (thinking about other future "circles"). I wouldn't however, lay out a set of inalienable terms and conditions for a circle. In reality some people have more availability to contribute, while others have less. I think that circles should be as inclusive as possible

Re UK, Scotland, Regional etc: My preference, for what it’s worth, would be to start with a UK group - to match other admin systems - and then break it down to regions as it grows.

Sounds peachy! Again, whatever you guys decide is best.

I would massively welcome some opportunity to identify my activities with ‘P2P and/or Commins Transition’ so very keen to make this happen to grow awareness and practice.

Yeah, I think that we're clarifying the discussion here and, as I've said, I'm massively grateful for all of your contributions. Once the group has decided on the character (P2PF Node, or Commons Transition Ciricle) and territorial scale of the initiative and has given it some shape I think that we'll be good to go endorsement wise.

Thanks Stacco - I take all your points. Especially the practical ones re: low entry and 'opt-in' etc. The only thing i feel a bit ‘out in the cold with’ is not having some reference, or backing, when working in local partnerships, which I’d like to introduce to ‘commoning’ practices, but who seem actively opposed to the idea. In the case of, say, ownership of local cultural services, when something like Rights Of The Child is being ignored in their delivery, there should be some ‘weight’ brought to bear. I don’t think everything spreads nicely, by consent or without a bit of confrontation… not that I’d be looking for any!

My problem is, I need external codes and standards - because the ones I’m working within aren’t doing what they should… if you see what I mean? I could leave it to my network to ‘decide’ - but they won’t decide in favour of p2p/commons. Demonstrating the positivity of a different way seems the best solution - another reason I am keen on affiliations with p2p Network, Commons Transition Circles etc.

Are you suggesting that no co-ordination across networks is necessary?…

I will study the Charter re your suggestions - maybe someone can offer a first re-draft? I might be willing to volunteer but it will be very sketchy as I'm busy on other stuff. I think my intention is to have some kind of common 'invitation' to participate. Something which maybe gives people and other orgs an opportunity to 'measure' themselves and their goals against a commoning model - and evaluate it. An invitation - I'll go with that for now! All best, Liam.

PS - have already revised thoughts on the language base - v. Difficult! Too many languages in Uk! I guess pragmatism will dictate some mimicking of existing systems...

Good to see folk joining in and getting active. I didn't really expect these questions to come up at this stage!

I'm just catching up with this thread so I'm going to try and re-cap to get a handle on things. So sounds like a few things discussed here:

• 1/ What is the group mission, & activities, goals?
• 2/ What's the scope of the Loomio group? (UK/Scotland/Edinburgh/Etc.)
• 3/ What should this 'group' be called? What does that mean?

My thoughts:

1/ That's what the meetup and this Loomio is all for! This question could probably do with its own dedicated thread and relates to question 2. By the by, I think it would be great to set a medium-long term target of the group organising a 'P2PF/Commons Transition Festival'.

2/ Should the Loomio group be a UK forum, with threads serving individual groups? Actually I quite like that idea. It's just a scaled up version of what I imagined doing for Scotland, having a shared online presence but smaller face to face stuff in different locations. However, as @wulee mentioned to me, it doesn't make sense to make these decisions on behalf of other people. If there are already existing groups in the UK, let's ask if they'd find this platform useful.

3/ In terms of group definition/naming, I've no real preference, and I'm not as well versed in the terminology and implications as others. This is an example of one of the reasons I wanted to get involved in organising a meetup: to learn. I'm new to much of this, but already after one meetup a few of the terms and ideas are already clearer to me. However, IMO, I'd prefer it if things started off at their most organic and informal for the time being. Formalisation & commitments come after more discussion and consensus is reached around Question 1.