►
From YouTube: ReCommoning Communities Dimeji Onafuwa (Microsoft) Jabe Bloom (Red Hat) OpenShift Commons Gathering
Description
Keynote: ReCommoning Communities
Dimeji Onafuwa (Microsoft) Jabe Bloom (Red Hat)
OpenShift Commons Gathering on Community Development
June 15, 2020
A
A
We're
here
having
a
talk
with
one
of
my
favorite
people
to
talk
to
who
I
could
talk
to
endlessly
Jade
about
community
and
community
building
and
and
a
topic
called
re
commenting
and
I'm
gonna
let
jab
and
did
you
manage
a
introduce
themselves
and
kick
off
with
our
second
keynote
of
the
day,
and
thank
you
both
very
much
for
coming.
Thank.
B
You
for
having
us
day
and
we're
excited
to
come
and
talk
to
people
III
wanted
to
point
out
just
coming
off
of
the
last.
You
note
that
I
watched,
which
is
super
interesting,
that
Damacy
and
I
are
not
directly
involved
with
any
of
the
communities
that
are
coming
and
and
talking
today
we're
not
members
of
the
CN
CF
or
those
other
communities.
So
our
talk
will
be
based
on
some
theory
and
some
suggestions
about
how
to
use
that
theory.
B
With
that
said,
I
want
to
introduce
you
guys
really
quickly
to
one
of
my
favorite
people
in
the
world,
dementia,
dementia
got
his
PhD
from
Carnegie
Mellon
in
a
discipline
called
transition
design,
while
he
was
there,
he
worked.
I
work
had
the
real
great
fortune
of
being
able
to
work
with
him
on
a
bunch
of
his
ideas
and
some
collaborations
on
things
like
commoning
and
recombinant
Ally
ship
in
the
importance
of
kind
of
creating
communities
in
order
to
support
ecosystemic
effects.
So
I'm
excited
to
have
this
conversation
with
him
today,
beige
a
yes.
C
And
hello,
everybody
and
I
am
also
it's
funny.
That
Jake
said
that
that,
because
I'm
also
really
excited
to
be
here,
I
see
Gabe,
as
just
as
he
sees
me,
I
see
him
as
a
really
wonderful
friend
and
coke
collaborator,
but
one
of
these
I
really
like
about
JB's
just
his
mind.
He
has
such
a
great
mind
and
he
kind
of
it
does
a
great
job
at
elevating
my
thinking
around
some
of
these
concepts
and
some
of
the
work
that
I
have
done
and
also
on
I,
don't
just
random
stuff.
C
C
So
so
you
know,
I
want
to
start
here
and
just
kind
of
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
how
we
think
about
the
Commons
or
how
I
specifically
think
about
the
Commons,
and
so
the
Commons
is
said
to
occupy
the
space
between
privately
held
property
and
public
goods.
So
there's
not
only
resource
systems
whose
they
are
not
only
increases
to
system
systems
that
we
over
exploit
that
might
lead
to
depletion,
but
the
Commons
also
includes
communities
using
these
resources
and
the
social
practices
that
define
how
these
resources
are
used
to.
C
C
So
he
wanted
to
establish
a
scarcity
theory
around
the
Commons,
and
he
also
believed
that
privatization
and
government
oversight
are
the
vital
ways
for
him
to
be
able
to
maintain
these
resources
had
advert
what
he
calls
a
tragedy
that
the
next
slide.
Please.
So
it's
important
for
us
to
note
here
that
Hardin
offered
perpetuated
an
anti-immigration
and
native
its
agenda,
so
you
see
that
he
leveraged
his
relative
prominence
as
a
respected
academic
in
at
UC
Santa
Barbara
to
rail
against
immigration.
He
believed
that
that's
one
of
the
reasons
overpopulation
in
the
u.s.
C
So
if
you
look
at
Ostrom
Joker's,
she
sees
actually
lays
out
these
things
that
she
called
design
principles
and
I
always
share
that.
You
know,
if
you
think
about
them
in
a
business,
you
can
away
they're
more
like
lagging
indicators.
They
are
not
design
principles
as,
for
example,
UX
designers,
we'll
think
about
them,
but
they
show
the
essential
ingredients
that
indicate
the
success
of
using
common
pool
resources
in
institutions.
So
these
principles
help
sustain
the
Commons.
In
other
words,
everyone
plays
their
part
and
to
keep
the
system
stable,
including
human
and
and
I.
C
So
when
we
think
about
Harding's
work
and
Austrians
work.
Patents,
for
example,
thought
about
the
antidote
to
the
tragedy
of
the
Commons.
Is
external
governance
mechanisms
on
one
side
and
privatization
on
the
other
side,
so
we
see
really
some
real-world
examples
that
demonstrate
the
limitations
of
this
notion.
C
So
it's
not
a.
It
does
not
actually
create
the
comment,
so
legal
structures
in
software
engineering
might
be
open
to
so
might
be
open
source,
for
example,
and
the
licenses
may
say
that
this
thing
cannot
be
privatized,
but
the
fact
of
the
real
fact
is
that
it
can
be.
The
fact
that
it
can't
be
privatized
does
not
make
it
more
of
a
Commons.
It
just
makes
it
not
private
sizable.
B
Pool
so
when
we
look
at
things
like
licenses,
we
can
say
that
they
establish
the
conditions
that
may
make
a
Commons
possible,
but
they
don't
actually
create
a
Commons
by
Fiat
right.
They
don't
they
don't
do
it
automatically,
and
we
can
say
in
general
that
things
like
licensure
or
governing
bodies
can
can
work
at
multiple
levels.
Inside
of
a
commons
and
Ostrom
identifies
these
three
different
levels
that
that
things
may
work
on
a
constitutional
level
which
would
enable
the
conditions
of
possibility.
B
So,
for
instance,
open
source
licensure
enables
open
source
commons
to
work
or
enables
them
to
exist,
but
it
does
not
guarantee
that
they
will
exist.
It
just
creates
the
possibility
of
them
existing
in
order
for
a
commons
to
actually
arise,
there's
two
extra
levels
of
negotiation
that
needs
to
occur,
so
one
would
be
the
collective
choice
level
which
tends
to
be
polycentric
a
lot
of
the
previous
conversation.
We
heard
the
last
keynote
revolved
around
these
types
of
ideas
of
multiple
organizations
banning
together
each
with
their
own
needs.
B
So
rules
about
how
people
can
contribute
code,
what
it
means
to
provide
a
patch
how
those
patches
should
work.
All
of
those
details
are
about
the
negotiation
of
how
a
community
works
together
on
a
detailed
level
in
a
day-to-day
way
and
the
important
the
last
important
thing
to
kind
of
point
out
here
from
from
Austin's
work.
Is
that
the
extent
that
a
commons
is
arises
from
a
constitutional
set
of
rules?
B
It
will
only
survive
if
it
has
equality
that
she
calls
adaptive
governance
and
adaptive.
Governments,
roughly
is
the
idea
that
all
three
levels
of
these
these
rules
that
are
established
and
helped
create
the
Commons
these
negotiations,
all
of
them
have
specific
types
of
outcomes,
and
all
of
them
then
need
to
be
evaluated
according
to
the
values
of
the
of
the
Commons
itself,
in
order
to
determine
whether
or
not
those
outcomes
were
valuable
or
not,
and
then,
finally,
that
outcomes
and
the
evaluations
should
feed
back
into
the
policy
creation
and
negotiation
processes.
B
Bodies
governing
comp
Commons
fail
to
listen
to
and
respond
to
the
feedback
they
become
maladaptive,
they
ossify
they
become
brittle
and
to
the
extent
that
they
listen
to
the
community's
needs
and
modify
the
policies
at
all
three
of
these
levels.
They
they
they
create
a
condition
of
adaptive
capacity.
There's
one
other
thing.
B
I
wanted
to
point
out
really
quickly,
as
we
kind
of
talk
through
this,
which
is
there's
a
specific
kind
of
license
that
I
think
actually
embeds
in
the
licensing,
a
quality
of
establishing
a
Commons,
and
it
is
the
beer
rare
license
a
little
bit
tongue-in-cheek.
But
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
here
is
that
in
Commons
theory
there
is
there's
an
idea
about
reciprocity
and
reciprocity
is
often
modeled
or
talked
about
in
the
way
that
one
talks
about
buying
the
next
round
of
beer.
B
So
a
transactional
view
or
a
transactional
government
system,
often
thought
of
as
kind
of
a
privatized
governance
system
and
potentially
a
centralized
governance
system
tend
to
be
transactional.
And
what
I
mean
by
transactional
is
that
if
I
were
to
buy
damaji
of
beer
and
then
I
immediately
took
out
a
notebook
and
wrote
down
exactly
how
much
that
beer
cost
and
I
said
to
de
Mage
a
you.
You
owe
me
five
dollars,
because
I
got
bought
you
that
beer.
B
That
would
be
a
transactional
interaction
and
one
of
the
things
that
happens
to
those
transactions
is
that
the
temporality
of
the
experience
is
quite
compressed.
It
means
that
that
there's
no
need
for
us
to
continue
to
negotiate
at
all.
There's
no
need
for
us
to
create
a
community
around
that
interaction
because
the
transaction
has
captured
what
is
do
both
sides.
B
Reciprocity
is
the
idea
that
the
that
not
writing
that
down
basically
establishes
an
ongoing
negotiation
between
between
dementia
and
myself,
where
it's
never
clear,
exactly
how
much
is
owed
to
either
side
only
that
we
will
continue
to
interact
with
each
other
and
that
somehow
that
interaction
will
create
a
fair
outcome.
So
I
like
the
beer
license
because
it
embeds
this
idea
that
the
contribution
will
be
recognized
at
some
other
time
and
that
other
time
is
not
specified
or
overly
constrained.
C
Great,
so
what
we're
thinking
about
you
know,
transaction,
you
know
your
Commons
existing
with
transactions.
You
know
we
won't
think
of
Commons
as
performative
right
there.
We
build
in
negotiation.
I
just
had
Jay
mention
reciprocity
and,
as
they're
revealed
in
negotiation
and
reciprocity,
the
community
engages
to
solve
the
real
problems
so
for
coming
into
emerge.
There
must
be
a
social
dilemma
and
a
social
dilemma
when
you
think
about
it
is
an
action
situation
where
there
is
always
a
conflict
that
is
happening
between
the
individual
and
collective
interest,
so
there.
C
C
So
shallowed
has
someone
whom
I
met
and
I
really
I,
not
only
think
she's
a
lovely
person
but
I
love
her
work.
She
co-authored
many
papers
with
Elinor
Ostrom,
on
the
Commons
and
and
in
her
work.
She
identified
these
six
common
entry
points
for
what
she
calls
the
new
Commons
discourse,
the
first
one
the
need
to
be
able
to
protect
the
resource
from
enclosure
which
we
cannot
alluded
to
and
so
far
the.
C
Secondly,
the
observation
or
action
of
peer
production
and
mass
collaboration,
primary
electronic
media,
the
evidence
of
new
types
of
tragedies
of
the
Commons
that
we
might
see
in
the
world.
Some
of
the
work
that
I'm
doing
with
another
collaborator,
kaki
Scott
talks
about
micro.
Commenting
then
the
desire
to
build
a
civic
education,
a
Commons
like
thinking
and
the
identification
of
new
evolving
types
of
Commons
and
finally,
a
rediscovery
of
the
Commons.
C
So
the
factors
that
determine
recombinant
are
pretty
clear,
at
least
from
my
perspective.
Presently
the
resource
or
the
property
being
recomand
is
existing.
We
already
currently
within
the
wrong
governance
structure
so
by
wrong.
I
mean
that
the
government
structure,
where
the
resources
that
that
we're
talking
about,
has
a
resource
being
either
exploited
to
the
point
of
depletion
or
fully
excluded
from
those
that
might
need
it.
C
A
second,
the
recombinant
shifts
the
paradigm
on
resource
negotiation
to
focus
on
the
negotiate
in
itself,
so
the
in
in
recombinant
signifies
something
that's
happening
continuously
to
a
continuous
reclaiming
of
the
process.
A
third,
the
pâtisserie
roles
embodied
in
the
commoners
engaged
in
this
recombinant,
are
being
drawn
from
conflict
management
and
resource
sharing
traditions
that
the
actually
sometimes
beyond
the
ones
around
us
and
they're,
not
just
those
traditions
within
comments,
but
also
leverage
other
approaches
to
negotiation.
C
So
sometimes
I
actually
draw
some
non-western
approaches
as
well
forth
relationships
through
which
these
resources
might
be
negotiated
at
critical
to
the
negotiation
itself.
So
I
actually
think
in
terms
of
the
different
roles
that
the
participants
embody
and
it's
sometimes
they're
human
and
sometimes
they're
non-human.
And
finally,
we
really
in
micro,
reclaiming
acts
that
are
visible
in
a
they
practice.
So
you
know
because
I'm,
a
designer
I'm
gonna
bring
some
design
in
into
this
conversation,
so
exploring
recovering
I
created
this
set
of
cards
that
I
used
to
help
collectives.
C
And
then
we
have
different
role
cards
which
identified
the
different
owners
and
the
participants
and
peers
and
partners
of
the
Commons
platforms
and
I
was
able
to
identify,
at
least
in
my
work
up
to
six
different
roles
that
I
embodied
in
the
negotiation
and
so
I
have
the
steward
income
earner.
An
upstream
Ally
and
exploiting
common
earth
described
the
town
crier
and
the
Oracle,
which
kind
of
represents
data.
C
So
and
if
we
were
to
go
to
the
next
slide
on
the
back
of
these
cards
or
this
problems,
I
actually
think
about
the
different
modalities
of
access
and
stewardship
that
have
to
do
with
the
boundaries
the
way
they
are
formed,
collective
agency
actors
that
might
be
human
and
non-human
and
the
different
needs
and
expectations
of
the
various
role,
participants
and
then
I
had
finally
the
next
slide.
These
are
called
the
dilemma
cards
that
present
the
action
arena
prompts
which
allow
criminals
to
engage
with
the
problems
related
to
resource-sharing.
C
So
a
good
example
of
one
way
that
I
use
that
and
I've
used
them
in
different
capacities
is
I,
did
some
workshop
in
with
landlords
and
Portland
and
landlords
and
tenants
in
the
Portland
area,
Portland
Oregon,
to
better
understand
issues
that
relate
to
negotiation
resources
and
sharing
information
around
tenancy
and
so
at
the
Portland
tenants.
United
is
an
organization
I
work
with
they
had
a
territorial
impact
that
affected
over
50,000
renters
in
the
metro
area,
and
some
of
these
negotiations
actually
led
to
some
some
of
the
policy
changes
around
rental
housing
in
the
region.
C
So
I
did
I
worked
in
different
contexts,
but
I
wanted
I'm
gonna
share
some
work
that
talks
about
data
driven
approaches
to
delivering
data
as
a
needed
resource
and
to
provide
a
more
honest
narrative
that
actually
drives
the
way
we
visualize
common
challenges,
such
as
housing,
insecurity,
homelessness
and
and
stuff,
and
and
so
forth.
The
next
slide,
please,
before
I,
do
that
I
actually
want
to
share
some
of
the
work.
A
good
friend
of
mine
me
me,
oh
no,
aha,
does
that
tries
to
find
mediate
missing
data
sets
for
the
benefit
of
the
community.
C
So
through
our
work,
Vimy
looks
at
blind
spots
and
in
spaces
that
are
otherwise
data
saturated
and
he
looks
at
data.
That's
either
obscured
or
that
should
exist
where
they
don't
speaks
to
the
value
of
ensuring
that
the
people
that
actually
toured
the
data
that
we
have
representation
of
data-
that's
more
egalitarian
by
Nature
next
slide.
Please
so.
C
I
worked
briefly
with
an
organization
called
hack
Oregon,
they
build
platforms.
We
engage
individual
contributors,
demystify
open
data
by
helping
to
find
solutions
to
some
social
dilemmas
experience
in
the
city
of
Portland.
So
when
I
work
with
them,
the
focus
was
to
contextualize
how's.
It
related
data
in
Portland,
because
Portland
Oregon
is
a
city
that
I
was
experiencing
and
still
is
experiencing
significant
rises
in
housing
prices,
as
well
as
a
glut
in
affordable
housing,
including
rental
housing.
C
So
a
hot
Oregon
work
to
create
an
action
arena
or
problem
space
around
housing
in
order
to
synthesize
the
complex
information
in
housing
market
and
provide
better
vision
for
long-term
affordability.
So
a
tenancy
advocates
group
such
as
the
Portland
tenants,
Union
United,
use
the
data
on
housing
as
evidence
to
support
the
agenda
tour.
Fortunately,
the
data
that
they
draw
is
usually
inconclusive
and
sometimes
unreliable
in
terms
of
the
sources.
So,
for
example,
some
realtor
data
was
claiming
then
that
up
to
five
four
hundred
single-family
homes
used
as
rentals
were
being
put
up
for
sale.
C
This
tenant
relocation
policy
was
put
into
effect,
but
this
data
did
not
account
for
short-term
rentals
on
Airbnb,
for
example,
and
this
false
data
offered
impacted
the
credibility
of
that
organization.
So
hack
Oregon
was
able
to
tap
into
housing
study
data
made
available
to
them,
which
is
considered
to
be
more
reliable,
I
actually
think
he
came
out
of
Harvard
and
they
extended
that
data
to
be
able
to
tell
better
stories
through
visualization,
but
they
not
only
did
that.
C
So
the
next
slide
please.
So
when
we
look
at
the
challenges
with
data
recombinant,
we
see
that
there's
some
misunderstandings
on
the
implications
of
access
in
open
data,
which
leads
to
improper
dishonest
uses
of
open
data,
including
individual
or
corporate
exploitation,
to
openness
should
not
always
mean
access
to
expertise
is
needed
with
open
data,
especially
in
terms
of
its
stewardship,
and
then
privacy
and
security
laws
need
need
to
be
there
to
ensure
transparency
and
collaboration,
and
then
thinking
about
the
right
ad
versus
the
wrong
data
and
finding
accountability,
measures
for
misuse
and
improper
privatization.
C
B
So
one
of
the
reasons
I
really
wanted
to
meet
you
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
de
neri.
Commenting
was
I.
Think
it's
a
really
interesting
example
of
the
way
that
we
could
think
of
what
the
common
resource
is
it
if
we
and
apply
the
rules
that
we
are
trying
to
figure
out
and
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
explore
we're
in
open
source
communities
so
open
source
communities,
the
resource
tends
to
be
the
source
code.
That's
why
we
point
to
open
source
and
some
of
the
questions
I
end
up
having
around
that
our.
B
One
of
the
one
of
the
real
big
issues
that
we
can
see
is
if,
if
a
platform
is
thought
of,
as
primarily
being
source
code,
the
the
things
that
we
kind
of
look
at
inside
of
DNC
F
and
things
like
that,
the
that
would
tend
to
the
resource
would
tend
to
be
source
code
in
operation.
But
in
fact,
a
huge
amount
of
what
makes
platforming
work
or
not.
B
Work
inside
of
organizations
is
the
fact
that
there's
massive
amounts
of
siloed
data
in
large
enterprises
and
the
negotiation
and
renegotiation
of
where
that
data
should
live
and
how
it
should
be
governed
are
real
issues
that
I
think
enterprises
struggle
with
so
I
think.
There's
multiple
there
different
places
where
we
could
use
this
thinking
about
Commons
to
to
rethink
how
we
manage
things
and
I,
don't
think
it's
just
source
code
and
I
think
that
this
community,
that
we're
talking
to
probably
has
a
good
deal
of
insight
to
contribute
to
things
like
that.
B
So
from
that
perspective,
I
just
wanted
to
really
quickly
kind
of
walk
through
some
of
the
points
that
that
the
Meiji
made
and
make
sure
that
they're
as
clear.
As
can
be,
one
of
the
things
to
say
is
just
that
there
is.
There
is
not
a
an
absolute
ethical
standard
that
commoning
is
better
than
other
things.
There
are
things
that
are
better
managed
by
governance
and
by
privatization.
B
So
that
being
said,
you
know,
we
see
a
set
of
patterns
around
how
things
that
could
be
more
valuable
treated
as
a
common
resource.
We
see
a
set
of
patterns
of
how
they,
how
those
resources
end
up
in
other
forms
of
governance
and
and
those
four
ones
that
we've
identified
so
far
are
either
they
were
placed.
The
the
resource
was
placed
into
privatization
or
governance
without
an
understanding
of
confidence.
In
other
words,
these
are
acts
of
omission.
B
It's
the
idea
that
the
person
or
the
group
deciding
how
to
distribute
these
resources
or
govern
these
resources
were
unaware
of
Commons
as
a
way
of
governing
there's
anti
Commons
in,
in
particular,
the
idea
that
we
shouldn't
have
these
kind
of
self-governing
systems
or
that
we
shouldn't
allow
for
community
engagement
and
that
kind
of
a
Hobbesian
version
of.
If
you
let
the
you,
let
the
people
manage
themselves,
they'll
run
amok,
so
that
is
more
of
an
error
of
commission.
B
In
other
words,
an
attempt
to
eliminate
Commons
or
either
either
bad
philosophical
reasons
and
or
for
for-profit
reasons.
The
other
one
we
see
is
things
that
start
as
privatized
resources,
but
then
need
to
be
common.
So
this
is
more
around
a
negotiation
of
things
where,
when
should
a
resource
that
has
started
out
appropriately
started
out
as
a
private
resource
be
Commons,
when
when
should
it
be
moved
into
a
Commons?
And
finally
there's
the
idea
that
things
that
were
in
a
Commons
could
be
degraded.
B
They
could
collapse
into
either
private
or
centralized
governance,
because
the
actual
community
processes
and
activities
that
we're
supporting
the
Commons
themselves,
the
road
and
therefore
the
resources
are
migrated
to
other
areas.
Other
forms
of
governance
in
order
to
be
continued
to
be
managed.
When
we
talk
about
recombinant,
then
what
we
mean
by
it
or
what
I
would
suggest
we
mean
by
it
is
that
we
want
to
first
recognize
that
some
resources
are
more
valuable.
B
Make
these
resources
back
into
a
commons
resource,
so
this
is
in
essence
the
what
I
think
of
as
being
recombinant
is
the
process
by
which
we
reveal
the
complexity
of
various
stakeholder
needs
and
we
create
the
conditions
to
enable
a
commons
to
arise
so
that
I
would
differentiate
from
commoning
itself
the
activity
of
maintaining
a
commons
and
again
to
beat
that
dead
horse.
It's
not
a
set
of
policies,
but
an
activity.
B
It's
a
process,
an
ongoing
process
that
maintains
and
reproduces
the
Commons
over
time
and
Ostrom
gives
us
these
nice
eight
rules
or,
as
imaginate
pointed
out
earlier
kind
of
design,
properties
or
qualities
that
one
might
look
for
in
order
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
Commons
is
going
to
to
be
effective
or
is
going
to
be
sustainable,
including
their
group,
boundaries
benefits
being
equivalent
to
cost
etc.
I
don't
need
to
read
the
slide
for
you
guys,
but
these
are
the
eight
that
we
would
look
for
in
order
to
determine
whether
the
Commons
is
stable.
B
B
Rapid
exogenous
changes,
in
other
words
the
environment
or
the
market
in
which
the
Commons
kind
of
exists
within
has
some
sort
of
change
can
cause
a
it
can
challenge
the
adaptive
capacity
of
the
governance
of
the
Commons
itself
transmission
failures.
So
when,
when
when
a
Commons
is
handed
from
one
group
of
individuals
to
another
group
of
individuals,
a
failure
to
translate
or
to
help
the
next
generation
of
leadership
understand
what
the
governing
was
based
on
in
the
first
place.
So
this
is
whenever
there
are
transitions
or
leadership,
transformations.
B
It's
important
to
notice
this
and
to
manage
the
transition
from
one
regime
to
another
regime
programs
that
rely
on
blueprint,
thinking
and
easy
access
to
external
funds.
Again,
when
we
treat
things
as
being
simple
as
opposed
to
complex,
what
we
would
expect
to
see
is
that
the
value
of
the
Commons
would
degrade
because
it,
the
the
value
of
the
Commons,
is
not
simply
in
the
resources,
but
it's
in
the
negotiation
of
the
resources
that
actually
creates
the
value,
corruption
and
an
opportunistic
behavior
and
then
a
whole
set
of
things.
B
That
I
think
are
things
that
I
heard
in
the
last
conversation,
I
hear
many
conversations,
including
being
able
to
explore,
expose
accurate
information,
reduce
conflicts
and
have
conflict
resolution
mechanisms
that
people
agree
upon
creating
educational
facilities,
which
we
heard
a
little
bit
about
in
the
last
presentation
as
well,
and
then
the
last
one
has
to
do
with
these
exhaustion
is
changes.
So
how?
How
is
the
organization's
managing
the
Commons
creating
resilience
by
creating
some
sort
of
capacity
for
absorbing
those
changes?
B
Then
I
just
have
two
more
thoughts
and
then
we're
gonna.
Do
ask
me
anything.
The
first
thought
is
this:
given
the
current
date
of
the
world,
I
think
a
brief
application
of
Commons
theory
to
what's
happening
right
now
and
and
through
Ostrom
zone.
Work
could
be
useful
to
think
through.
The
first
thing
is
to
say
that
Ostrom
first
work
prior
to
the
Commons
and
one
of
the
ways
that
she
came
to
understand
the
Commons
and
the
importance
of
community
engaged
in
there
and
self-organization.
B
It
was
her
study
of
police
forces
in
the
United
States
and
in
in
those
studies.
What
she
found
was
very
interesting
in
particular,
aggressive
policing
has
a
feedback
loop
that
dampens
the
ability
for
the
communities
that
those
that
are
being
policed
to
clearly
express
themselves
and
to
control
the
police
forces
in
to
such
an
extent
that
even
adding
more
and
more
laws
and
disciplinary
effects
into
the
feedback
loop
doesn't
actually
improve
the
performance
of
the
police
in
relationship
to
the
communities.
B
B
The
other
thing
that
ends
up
happening
is
that
citizens
become
unaware
of
the
individuals
that
are
policing
them
and
they
don't
have
direct
interactions
with
them,
so
they
can't
create
effective
pressure
on
those
those
police
forces
and
the
result
of
that
ends
up
being
that
informal
control
of
police
officers,
in
other
words,
the
community's
social
norms
as
a
way
of
controlling
policing.
So
you
can
imagine
people
standing
on
streets
shouting
at
police
officers,
not
to
kill
them,
and
things
like
this.
Those
are
informal
controls,
they're,
not
legal
controls,
they're
the
community
expressing
something
specific.
B
Those
informal
controls
in
these
larger
and
larger
police
forces
end
up
being
less
and
less
effective,
and
so
the
result
of
that
is
kind
of
a
a
feedback
loop
that
amplifies
destructive
behavior
around
the
communities
that
the
police
are
supposed
to
be
protecting.
So
the
result
of
this
is
kind
of
the
rapid
divergence
and
a
collapse
of
the
Commons,
where
the
Commons,
in
this
case
is
expressed
by
people's
common
security
needs.
Ostrom
was
very
specific
in
her
findings
about
this.
B
She
she
stated
that
she
has
never
found
a
good
example
of
a
higher
paid
police.
Fort
she's
never
found
a
correlation
between
increasing
the
amount
and
funding
amount
of
police
officers
and
funding
of
police
officers
with
the
quality
of
the
community's
perception
of
security
and
therefore
their
ability
to
create
a
commons
around
their
own
self-organized
security.
B
So
he
did
find
the
opposite
of
this,
which
was
that
smaller
organizations
tended
to
create
the
space
needed
for
communities
to
not
only
create
their
own
self
policing,
in
other
words,
the
reduction
of
crime
by
actual
citizens
working
to
create
better
conditions
and
reduce
the
likelihood
of
crime,
but
also
the
feedback
loops
required
in
order
to
make
sure
that
the
police
forces
were
under
under
the
control
of
the
communities
that
they
were
supposed
to
be
managing.
And
so
what
she
says
basically,
is
that
the
problem
with
a
lot
of
current
attempts
to
control.
B
Well,
actually,
this
is
in
the
70s.
But
a
lot
of
the
problems
with
trying
to
control
policing
are
simply
based
on
the
fact
that
they
over
rely
on
what
police
departments
can
do
in
order
to
improve
law
enforcement.
And
they
don't
focus
enough
on
citizens
can
do
as
co-producers
of
community
security
and
then
a
shift
from
increasing
control
of
police
forces,
as
opposed
to
increasing
community
interaction
in
order
to
create
safety
is,
is
an
under
explored
Avenue.
B
There
is
a
chance
that
those
those
individuals
could
have
encoded
racist,
sexist,
biased
thoughts
processes
into
the
various
levels
inside
the
of
these
different
parts
of
the
organization,
and
the
result
of
that
is
what
we
would
call
institutional.
Racism
in
sex
and
Commons
itself
does
not
resolve
this
problem,
because
it
does
not
offer
a
way
to
think
through
how
to
create
a
Commons
out
of
more
heterogeneous
concerns.
B
It
could
be
I'm,
not
forwarding
the
slides,
I
sorry
apologize
and
that,
finally,
we
need
to
build
pot
up
these
platforms
to
actively
empower
others.
And
ideally
we
want
to
encourage
people
involved
in
creating
Commons
to
refuse
to
stay
silent
about
the
erasure
and
subjugation
of
other
people's.
So
just
the
last
thing,
when
we
look
at
this
and
we
look
at
this
multiple
level
idea
inside
of
Commons,
we
end
up
with
a
structure
that
says
that
when
we
are
a
lying
with
people,
we
can
ally
with
them
at
multiple
levels
or
multiple
purposes.
B
A
A
C
C
A
So
there's
it's
really
I'm
gonna
unmute,
my
my
co-moderator
here
Daniel
in
case
he
wants
to
add
anything
and
a
piece
of
Marie
there's
a
couple
of
folks.
Who've
been
chattering
in
the
background
too
about
this,
but
I
think
the
the
work
that
you're
doing
is
incredibly
impactful
and
informs
a
lot
of
the
work
that
we
as
community
developers
are
doing.
And
so
thank
you
very
much
for
for
doing
this
and
helping
one
thing.
I
wanted
to
say
and
I
always
have
to
preface
this
is
that
OpenShift
Commons
is
not
was
not
created
by
community.
A
It
is
a
an
informal
structure
that
we
have
and
we
put
in
place,
and
you
know
an
aspirational
goal
is
for
it
to
be
an
actual
Commons,
though
I'm
not
trying
to
self
aggrandizing
about
Commons
when
I
be
labeled
over
to
Commons.
But
it
is
an
aspirational
goal
to
get
there
and
to
have
some
of
these
infrastructure
and
processes
in
place.
A
One
of
the
questions
that
that
I
have
for
you
and
that
I
think
it
is,
it
go
revolves
around
and
again,
and
you
talked
about
the
Allied
ship
and
the
diversity.
Is
that
and
the
homogeneity
usually
of
forming
a
commons?
You
know
that
you
that
they're
usually
more
successful.
If
they're
everybody
things
like
or
looks
alike
or
is
from
the
same
background
or
whatever,
and
what
and-
and
you
know,
there's
so
many
things
that
came
up
today,
but
one
of
the
things
that
we
all
struggle
with
is
especially
in
open
source.
A
Is
this
idea
of
meritocracy
and
and
how
that
influences
our
ideas
about
how
a
project
should
be
governed?
Who
should
be
the
the
people
that
are
considered
the
experts
or
putting
the
governance
in
place
and
and
I
wonder
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about?
Maybe
what
I
would
call
the
myth
of
meritocracy
and
how
to
create
more
open
governance
and
I
love?
The
I
love
the
phrase
that
you
had
about
problem
reviewers
as
well.
A
C
So
I
can
I,
can
start
and
briefly
give
a
quick
response,
and
then
Jake
can
extend
that
a
little
bit.
So
one
things
we
think
about,
and
we
always
go.
Jim
and
I
have
been
going
back
and
forth
on
these
ideas
for
a
while.
Now
and
one
of
the
things
we
think
about
from
other
work
is
that
diverse
systems
are
resilient
system
and
being
able
to
actually
think
in
terms
of
introducing
diversity,
and
so
one
of
the
I
was
thinking
about.
C
One
of
the
patterns
in
some
of
the
work
that
I
was
doing
is
permeability
of
the
boundaries
that
you
form,
so,
in
other
words,
ensuring
that
the
right
voice
is
brought
in
is
absolutely
crucial
and
fundamental.
When
you
think
about
common
in
as
a
practice
and-
and
so
one
of
the
I
think
one
of
the
ways
you
do
that,
at
least
from
the
design
standpoint
is
that
you
acknowledge
different
forms
and
different
levels
of
expertise.
C
So
you
always
leverage
expertise
and
be
aware
that
expert
expertise
presents
itself
in
different
forms
and
so
and
being
able
to
have
think
in
terms
of
like
governance
and
and
ensuring
that
representation
that
the
governance
is
representative
of
the
people
that
are
the
coal
participants.
All
the
comments
in
the
comments
is
absolutely
crucial,
but
then
I'll
see,
if
Jeb
has
some
thoughts
around
expanding
that
a
little
bit
I.
B
You
can
basically
say
you
know
what,
whenever
we're
going
to
make
a
decision
about,
DNS
is
the
mage
a
gets
to
make
the
final
call.
You
can
talk
about
all
you
want,
but
the
major
is
the
one
that
makes
the
final
call.
It
means
that
the
mage
a
can
actually
just
kind
of
cut
the
baby
in
two
whenever
he
wants
and
that
that
results
in
faster
decision
making
right.
So
all
of
this
is
based
in
an
efficiency
theory
where
the
whole
point
is
to
make
the
organization
move
fast
or
think
fast
or
act
faster.
B
One
of
the
arguments
of
the
Commons
is
that
it's
not
an
efficiency
based
play.
It's
not
an
attempt
to
make
decision-making
more
efficient.
It's
actually
an
attempt
to
recognize
the
complexity
of
needs
of
different
individuals
inside
of
the
inside
of
the
Commons
group
and
therefore
it
doesn't
make
it
more
efficient.
B
Recognize
that
the
meritocracy
itself
is
designed
for
specific
reason
and
that's
not
good
or
bad,
but
when
we
are
trying
to
increase
the
requisite
variety
inside
the
organization
and
an
increase
increase
the
differences
in
order
to
make
the
organization
better.
That
meritocracy
is
actually
probably
usually
counterproductive.
A
We've
lost.
We
also
hear
I,
think
a
mantra
within
you
know
open
source
and
Red,
Hat
and
other
organizations.
Is
that
having
homogeneous
groups?
Doesn't
you
don't
get
a
lot
of
innovation
in
that
as
well?
So
with?
Is
this
whole
dynamic
of
innovation
being
driven
by
different
opinions
as
well
in
different
aspects?
So
there's
there's
a
lot
of
nuances
to
the
whole
conversation
around
bringing
people
in
to
the
community
having
their
voices
heard.
So
it's
this
is.
D
Well,
I
actually
have
a
question
for
J
and
dimension.
Thank
you
for
your
amazing
presentation.
I
was
just
listening
to
the
the
hidden
brains,
podcast
that
aired
on
the
12th
just
a
couple
days
ago,
and
they
make
a
lot
of
the
same
points
about
the
role
the
community
plays
the
unconscious
bias.
The
role
the
community
plays
to
you
know
be
an
indicator
of
the
unconscious
bias
and
activities
of
the
C
in
police
forces
and
things
like
that.
So
it's
a
fascinating
podcast.
All
the
air
we
breathe.
D
If
you
want
some
data
that
was
from
the
ihe
test
that
wasn't
fifty
years
old
I
encourage
you
to
go
check
that
out,
but
my
question
for
you,
since
you
have
a
lot
of
community
organizers
and
community
members
on
this
all
today.
What
are
you
doing
specifically
with
this
data?
And
how
are
you
you
know
putting
it
back
into
recommon
the
communities
and
the
work?
Can
we
specifically
do
as
community
organizers.
C
So
I
think
in
sorry.
It
took
like
my
work.
I
think
the
you
know
the
working
sort
of
like
the
data,
specifically
what's
being
done.
There
is
actually
I
have
since
shifted
away
to
all
the
work.
So
I
I
was
actually
not
deeply
entrenched
in
that
I
have
to
make
sure
that
I'm
I
I
say
that
pretty
clearly.
So
my
work
was
tangential
to
that.
So
I
was
a
researcher
working
with
that
team.
So
I
was
embedded
in
the
team
and
working
closely
with
them.
C
So
but
I,
you
know
and
I'll
go
out
on
a
limb
and
say
to
a
lot
of
the
work.
That's
been
done
with
them
with
HACC
Oregon,
which
is
the
case
that
I
shared
with
you.
It's
still
being
carried
forward.
So
the
the
the
the
you
know,
the
data
that's
been:
that's
been
bucketed
and
contained,
and
and
and
contextualized
it's
being
shared
directly
with
the
community.
So
they
have
hiked.
C
Oregon
has
a
platform,
and
he
has
it's
actually
stem
works
closely
with
it's
a
group
of
community
activists
with
that
actually
visualizes
the
data
and
puts
it
out
there
in
the
community.
So
that's
still
ongoing,
but
it's
not
work
I'm
directly
connected
to
so
I'm,
not
anymore
at
least,
and
so,
but
it's
still
it's
it's
a
very,
very
much
community
facing
they've
actually
built
a
broader
civic
organization
that
actually
comes
out
that
data
is
shared
as
well.
I.
B
C
C
Design
design
as
symbolic
violence
and
symbolic
violence
is
a
is
it
term
that
was
coined
by
Pierre
Paju
that
talks
about
the
in,
in
perceptible
terms
of
power,
forms
of
violence
that
are
caused
by
power
differentials
and
power
in
differences
within
add
structures
and
communities
and
societies,
and
so,
when
you
think
about
that,
just
to
kind
of
piggyback
off
of
what
Gabe
was
talking
about.
The
representation
is
absolutely
crucial
right.
C
There,
making
sure
that
the
date
that
you
that
you
are
presenting
and
you're
sharing
actually
bears
the
truth
that
that
is
that
is
missing,
so
I
shared
earlier.
The
work
of
memmio
Noah
about
the
missing
data
sets
where,
where
the
the
stories
that
are
being
built
around
the
data
that's
been
shared,
is
not
consistent
because
there's
not
the
representation
is
not
curved,
not
proper.
It's
not
it's
improper
representation.
There
I
think
it's
really.
You
know
I
think
it's
really
important,
really
important
point
to
you.
A
Awesome
well
I.
We
could
have
another
hour
just
on
open
data.
There's
I
have
a
group
coming
in
a
little
bit
later
this
week,
talking
about
a
Kovach,
19,
open
data
project,
that's
happening
up
here
in
Canada
and
we've
been
having
a
discussion
right
about
this.
Is
that,
like
the
metadata
around
race-
and
you
know,
because
of
health
care
and
privacy
issues
and
stuff
like
that,
they
can't
they
don't
have
access
to
it
or
if
they
do
it's
in
stats,
Canada
and
it's
it's
really.
You
know
combining
data
sets
in
to
create
real,
true
data.
A
Is
that's
accurate
and
reflective
of
what's
actually
happening
on
the
ground.
You
see
that
in
so
many
things,
whether
it's
policing
or
kovat
or
pretty
much.
You
know
any
that
the
data
I
love,
the
quote
that
you
just
gave
there
I,
probably
can't
paraphrase
it
right,
but
I
think
that
was
dead-on
in
terms
of
you
know.
A
You
can
trust
the
data,
but
you
really
need
to
understand
where
it's
coming
from
and
what
the
biases
are
in,
creating
that
and
using
that
to
judge
or
make
decisions
without
knowing
that
is
really
one
of
the
more
dangerous
things
we
can
do.
So
I
can't
tell
you
how
grateful
I
am
for
this
amazing
conversation
and
for
everybody
for
participating
in
it,
where
a
little
bit
behind
today,
so
I
am
going
to
make
you
guys
come
back
again
soon
and
give
you
you
know
another
hour
to
talk
about
this
as
we
have
on
Fridays.