Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Paolo Ruffino via NetBehaviour]

I have been reading this list for ages, although probably many of you have
been here for longer.
I rarely intervene, but I find some of the discussions here to be really
important for me. I understand I could participate more than I do, but I
don't always have the energy, or feel that I'm actually contributing in a
significant way. Let's say that I would certainly miss this list if
it didn't exist anymore!
Best,

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 17:43, drew davidson  wrote:

>
>
> another happy lurker…  great list to learn from…
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2021, at 11:55 AM, Klobucar, Philip Andrew <
> andrew.klobu...@njit.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello Word.
>
> I just subscribed to this list at the suggestion of Alan Sondheim, so I am
> currently one level below "lurker," but I aspire to lurk happily here.
>
> Best,
> Andrew
>
>
> To be in the book. To figure in the book of
>
> Questions, to be part of it. To be responsible for
> a word or a sentence, a stanza or chapter.
>
> Edmond Jabès, *Le Livre des Questions*
>
>
>
> Andrew Klobucar, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Humanities
> New Jersey Institute of Technology
> 332 Cullimore Hall
> 973.596.5724
> klobu...@njit.edu
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 1:48 AM Kath O'Donnell via NetBehaviour <
> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>
>> another happy lurker too
>> this is one of the remaining lists I read, usually delayed from when the
>> messages/threads have been originally sent. I hope it will continue in some
>> form
>> cheers
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 15:43, Julian Brooks 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> another happy lurker happily lurking
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>>
>>> On Sunday, June 13th, 2021 at 13:31, Edward Picot via NetBehaviour <
>>> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi everyone,
>>> >
>>> > Just catching up on all this after a mega-busy week at work. In brief:
>>> >
>>> > yes to Ruth's proposal.
>>> >
>>> > Edward
>>> >
>>> > On 13/06/2021 13:09, Helen Sloan wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively
>>> > >
>>> > > own this place, and are willing to reflect on this occasionally
>>> > >
>>> > > -   that's more than enough for me. We can stay with furtherfield
>>> > >
>>> > > legacy infrastructure and near-zero moderation by Marc and me
>>> > >
>>> > > for now (if that suits everyone).
>>> > >
>>> > > Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this
>>> > >
>>> > > proposal for list renewal.
>>> > >
>>> > > ===
>>> > >
>>> > > Over a 1 month period starting xxx
>>> > >
>>> > > We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
>>> > >
>>> > > 1.  Make a post on any topic or responding to anyone else's post
>>> > > 2.  Send an email with "Happy Lurker" in the subject header
>>> > > 3.  Do nothing.
>>> > >
>>> > > At the end of this time, moderators could
>>> > > 4.  gather a list of everyone who posted
>>> > > 5.  unsubscribe everyone else.
>>> > >
>>> > > In this way we will know who we are, we will be able to see
>>> > >
>>> > > ourselves collectively and know who is in the woods.
>>> > >
>>> > > This is something we can do intermittently.
>>> >
>>> > NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> >
>>> > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
>>> >
>>> > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>> ___
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
>>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>


-- 
Paolo Ruffino
http://paoloruffino.com
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[drew davidson]

another happy lurker…  great list to learn from…


> On Jun 14, 2021, at 11:55 AM, Klobucar, Philip Andrew 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello Word. 
> 
> I just subscribed to this list at the suggestion of Alan Sondheim, so I am 
> currently one level below "lurker," but I aspire to lurk happily here. 
> 
> Best,
> Andrew
> 
> To be in the book. To figure in the book of 
> Questions, to be part of it. To be responsible for 
> a word or a sentence, a stanza or chapter.
> Edmond Jabès, Le Livre des Questions 
> 
> 
> Andrew Klobucar, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Humanities
> New Jersey Institute of Technology
> 332 Cullimore Hall
> 973.596.5724
> klobu...@njit.edu
>  
> 
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 1:48 AM Kath O'Donnell via NetBehaviour 
>  > wrote:
> another happy lurker too
> this is one of the remaining lists I read, usually delayed from when the 
> messages/threads have been originally sent. I hope it will continue in some 
> form
> cheers
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 15:43, Julian Brooks  > wrote:
> another happy lurker happily lurking
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> 
> On Sunday, June 13th, 2021 at 13:31, Edward Picot via NetBehaviour 
>  > wrote:
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Just catching up on all this after a mega-busy week at work. In brief:
> >
> > yes to Ruth's proposal.
> >
> > Edward
> >
> > On 13/06/2021 13:09, Helen Sloan wrote:
> >
> > > If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively
> > >
> > > own this place, and are willing to reflect on this occasionally
> > >
> > > -   that's more than enough for me. We can stay with furtherfield
> > >
> > > legacy infrastructure and near-zero moderation by Marc and me
> > >
> > > for now (if that suits everyone).
> > >
> > > Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this
> > >
> > > proposal for list renewal.
> > >
> > > ===
> > >
> > > Over a 1 month period starting xxx
> > >
> > > We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
> > >
> > > 1.  Make a post on any topic or responding to anyone else's post
> > > 2.  Send an email with "Happy Lurker" in the subject header
> > > 3.  Do nothing.
> > >
> > > At the end of this time, moderators could
> > > 4.  gather a list of everyone who posted
> > > 5.  unsubscribe everyone else.
> > >
> > > In this way we will know who we are, we will be able to see
> > >
> > > ourselves collectively and know who is in the woods.
> > >
> > > This is something we can do intermittently.
> >
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> >
> > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org 
> > 
> >
> > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour 
> > 
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org 
> 
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour 
> 
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org 
> 
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour 
> 
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Klobucar, Philip Andrew]

Hello Word.

I just subscribed to this list at the suggestion of Alan Sondheim, so I am
currently one level below "lurker," but I aspire to lurk happily here.

Best,
Andrew


To be in the book. To figure in the book of

Questions, to be part of it. To be responsible for
a word or a sentence, a stanza or chapter.

Edmond Jabès, *Le Livre des Questions*



Andrew Klobucar, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Humanities
New Jersey Institute of Technology
332 Cullimore Hall
973.596.5724
klobu...@njit.edu


On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 1:48 AM Kath O'Donnell via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> another happy lurker too
> this is one of the remaining lists I read, usually delayed from when the
> messages/threads have been originally sent. I hope it will continue in some
> form
> cheers
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 15:43, Julian Brooks 
> wrote:
>
>> another happy lurker happily lurking
>>
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>
>> On Sunday, June 13th, 2021 at 13:31, Edward Picot via NetBehaviour <
>> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > Just catching up on all this after a mega-busy week at work. In brief:
>> >
>> > yes to Ruth's proposal.
>> >
>> > Edward
>> >
>> > On 13/06/2021 13:09, Helen Sloan wrote:
>> >
>> > > If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively
>> > >
>> > > own this place, and are willing to reflect on this occasionally
>> > >
>> > > -   that's more than enough for me. We can stay with furtherfield
>> > >
>> > > legacy infrastructure and near-zero moderation by Marc and me
>> > >
>> > > for now (if that suits everyone).
>> > >
>> > > Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this
>> > >
>> > > proposal for list renewal.
>> > >
>> > > ===
>> > >
>> > > Over a 1 month period starting xxx
>> > >
>> > > We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
>> > >
>> > > 1.  Make a post on any topic or responding to anyone else's post
>> > > 2.  Send an email with "Happy Lurker" in the subject header
>> > > 3.  Do nothing.
>> > >
>> > > At the end of this time, moderators could
>> > > 4.  gather a list of everyone who posted
>> > > 5.  unsubscribe everyone else.
>> > >
>> > > In this way we will know who we are, we will be able to see
>> > >
>> > > ourselves collectively and know who is in the woods.
>> > >
>> > > This is something we can do intermittently.
>> >
>> > NetBehaviour mailing list
>> >
>> > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
>> >
>> > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Kath O'Donnell via NetBehaviour]

another happy lurker too
this is one of the remaining lists I read, usually delayed from when the
messages/threads have been originally sent. I hope it will continue in some
form
cheers

On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 15:43, Julian Brooks  wrote:

> another happy lurker happily lurking
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On Sunday, June 13th, 2021 at 13:31, Edward Picot via NetBehaviour <
> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Just catching up on all this after a mega-busy week at work. In brief:
> >
> > yes to Ruth's proposal.
> >
> > Edward
> >
> > On 13/06/2021 13:09, Helen Sloan wrote:
> >
> > > If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively
> > >
> > > own this place, and are willing to reflect on this occasionally
> > >
> > > -   that's more than enough for me. We can stay with furtherfield
> > >
> > > legacy infrastructure and near-zero moderation by Marc and me
> > >
> > > for now (if that suits everyone).
> > >
> > > Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this
> > >
> > > proposal for list renewal.
> > >
> > > ===
> > >
> > > Over a 1 month period starting xxx
> > >
> > > We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
> > >
> > > 1.  Make a post on any topic or responding to anyone else's post
> > > 2.  Send an email with "Happy Lurker" in the subject header
> > > 3.  Do nothing.
> > >
> > > At the end of this time, moderators could
> > > 4.  gather a list of everyone who posted
> > > 5.  unsubscribe everyone else.
> > >
> > > In this way we will know who we are, we will be able to see
> > >
> > > ourselves collectively and know who is in the woods.
> > >
> > > This is something we can do intermittently.
> >
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> >
> > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> >
> > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Julian Brooks]

another happy lurker happily lurking

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On Sunday, June 13th, 2021 at 13:31, Edward Picot via NetBehaviour 
 wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Just catching up on all this after a mega-busy week at work. In brief:
>
> yes to Ruth's proposal.
>
> Edward
>
> On 13/06/2021 13:09, Helen Sloan wrote:
>
> > If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively
> >
> > own this place, and are willing to reflect on this occasionally
> >
> > -   that's more than enough for me. We can stay with furtherfield
> >
> > legacy infrastructure and near-zero moderation by Marc and me
> >
> > for now (if that suits everyone).
> >
> > Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this
> >
> > proposal for list renewal.
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Over a 1 month period starting xxx
> >
> > We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
> >
> > 1.  Make a post on any topic or responding to anyone else's post
> > 2.  Send an email with "Happy Lurker" in the subject header
> > 3.  Do nothing.
> >
> > At the end of this time, moderators could
> > 4.  gather a list of everyone who posted
> > 5.  unsubscribe everyone else.
> >
> > In this way we will know who we are, we will be able to see
> >
> > ourselves collectively and know who is in the woods.
> >
> > This is something we can do intermittently.
>
> NetBehaviour mailing list
>
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
>
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Edward Picot via NetBehaviour]

Hi everyone,

Just catching up on all this after a mega-busy week at work. In brief: 
yes to Ruth's proposal.


Edward

On 13/06/2021 13:09, Helen Sloan wrote:

If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively
own this place, and are willing to reflect on this occasionally
- that's more than enough for me. We can stay with furtherfield
legacy infrastructure and near-zero moderation by Marc and me
for now (if that suits everyone).
Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this
proposal for list renewal.
===
Over a 1 month period starting xxx
We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
1. Make a post on any topic or responding to anyone else's post
2. Send an email with "Happy Lurker" in the subject header
3. Do nothing.
At the end of this time, moderators could
1. gather a list of everyone who posted
2. unsubscribe everyone else.
In this way we will know who we are, we will be able to see
ourselves collectively and know who is in the woods.
This is something we can do intermittently.



___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Helen Sloan]

Happy lurker agrees. Hope everyone is doing ok. 
Best
Helen

Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Jun 2021, at 02:29, Alan Sondheim  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, For some reason I didn't see the last - and I agree totally with 
> everything, and thank you.
> 
> Best, Alan
> 
> 
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2021, Lichty, Patrick M wrote:
>> 
>> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:06:30 -0500
>> From: "Lichty, Patrick M" 
>> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>
>> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>>
>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a
>>fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland
>> So say me all.
>> Yes, we need this place, we need you.
>>  
>> From: NetBehaviour  on behalf
>> of Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour 
>> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>> 
>> Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 11:12 AM
>> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>> 
>> Cc: Ruth Catlow 
>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a
>> fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland
>>  
>> Hi  Alan
>>  
>> Did you read this bit?
>>  
>> "If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively own this place, and
>> are willing to reflect on this occasionally - that's more than enough for
>> me. We can stay with furtherfield legacy infrastructure and near-zero
>> moderation by Marc and me for now (if that suits everyone)."
>>  
>> I was asking for responses to a proposal. I see your point about allowing
>> people to go undeclared - I think it's a good one. 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 3:52 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  Hi Ruth,
>>  
>> I probably stand alone here. Occupy was many things, wasn't that well
>> organized, I was there several times. There was always a drum circle
>> on the outskirts that interrupted flow. There were outlying groups and
>> meetings that weren't on the main site. It was chaotic. It was bottom
>> up.
>>  
>> I don't like the suggestion below. First, I'm on a number of lists; on
>> most of them I don't post, but I learn. This is a tradition all the
>> way back. There are lists people have been silent on because they've
>> infiltrated right-wing or fascist organizations. There are people on
>> lists who don't want to be counted or accounted for, for many reasons.
>> Your suggestion seems like a forced enrollment: come forward, tell
>> everyone who you are, or you're gone. Another way to look at that:
>> It's a privilege to be on this list and you must actively participate
>> or you're gone. Or it's your duty as a member of this list to
>> participate or you're gone. Or if you're shy and just interested in
>> reading or possibly backchanneling only, you're gone.
>>  
>> This literally has me in tears. For me, again, lists have had the
>> advantage of the commons. But this commons then has a different
>> purpose, and if you don't fit in, leave. Then it's not a commons, is
>> it? Or are you talking about a commons where people must announce
>> their presence or be gone? You say "This revolved around efforts to
>> create open access" - but does this mean that you _must_ access
>> publicly and make your presence known?
>>  
>> Every list I'm on, by the way, is advertising-free; people might
>> announce they have a harmonica for sale (harmonica list) or a new book
>> has come out (wryting-l) or they're showing somewhere (Netbehaviour),
>> but they're not advertisement-based of course. People announce from
>> within the list, not to it.
>>  
>> We have to "know who is in the woods"? In England, perhaps land and
>> parkland is managed differently than in the U.S. You have to sign in
>> at National Parks, but just once - in fact that's like a subscription
>> - but you don't need to announce who you are on any basis to everyone
>> else. In state parks, you just go in, Much as this country is horrific
>> and lawless and armed to the teeth, we feel comfortable going to parks
>> (except for the tics).
>>  
>> I honestly don't feel comfortable on this list, and apologies for not
>> being more helpful. I'll continue posting daily, you'll do what you
>> want to do; the very performative discussion of unsubscribe is a
>> signifier of power. I am so tired of, so worn out, by promulgations of
>> power. (Yes, I know, power is everywhere, etc. But there are degrees
>> and there are safe spaces, at least for now.)
>>  
>> Alan
>>  
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:06 AM Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  Dear everyone,
>> 
>>  Thanks so much for helping me to work through some of my
>>  niggles with the list. I now have a much better sense of
>>  what its value is to some of us at the fireside and a few
>>  of the people from the woods. I've also been greatly
>>  enjoying the recent exchanges!
>> 
>>  I also found Adam's email beautiful. Especially personally
>>  resonant because I lived for a year in Penryn 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Alan Sondheim]

Hi, For some reason I didn't see the last - and I agree totally with 
everything, and thank you.


Best, Alan


On Sat, 12 Jun 2021, Lichty, Patrick M wrote:


Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 20:06:30 -0500
From: "Lichty, Patrick M" 
Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity

To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity

Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a
fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland


So say me all.
Yes, we need this place, we need you.

 

From: NetBehaviour  on behalf
of Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour 
Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity

Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 11:12 AM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity

Cc: Ruth Catlow 
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a
fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

 

Hi  Alan

 

Did you read this bit?

 

"If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively own this place, and
are willing to reflect on this occasionally - that's more than enough for
me. We can stay with furtherfield legacy infrastructure and near-zero
moderation by Marc and me for now (if that suits everyone)."

 

I was asking for responses to a proposal. I see your point about allowing
people to go undeclared - I think it's a good one. 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 3:52 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour
 wrote:

  Hi Ruth,

 

I probably stand alone here. Occupy was many things, wasn't that well
organized, I was there several times. There was always a drum circle
on the outskirts that interrupted flow. There were outlying groups and
meetings that weren't on the main site. It was chaotic. It was bottom
up.

 

I don't like the suggestion below. First, I'm on a number of lists; on
most of them I don't post, but I learn. This is a tradition all the
way back. There are lists people have been silent on because they've
infiltrated right-wing or fascist organizations. There are people on
lists who don't want to be counted or accounted for, for many reasons.
Your suggestion seems like a forced enrollment: come forward, tell
everyone who you are, or you're gone. Another way to look at that:
It's a privilege to be on this list and you must actively participate
or you're gone. Or it's your duty as a member of this list to
participate or you're gone. Or if you're shy and just interested in
reading or possibly backchanneling only, you're gone.

 

This literally has me in tears. For me, again, lists have had the
advantage of the commons. But this commons then has a different
purpose, and if you don't fit in, leave. Then it's not a commons, is
it? Or are you talking about a commons where people must announce
their presence or be gone? You say "This revolved around efforts to
create open access" - but does this mean that you _must_ access
publicly and make your presence known?

 

Every list I'm on, by the way, is advertising-free; people might
announce they have a harmonica for sale (harmonica list) or a new book
has come out (wryting-l) or they're showing somewhere (Netbehaviour),
but they're not advertisement-based of course. People announce from
within the list, not to it.

 

We have to "know who is in the woods"? In England, perhaps land and
parkland is managed differently than in the U.S. You have to sign in
at National Parks, but just once - in fact that's like a subscription
- but you don't need to announce who you are on any basis to everyone
else. In state parks, you just go in, Much as this country is horrific
and lawless and armed to the teeth, we feel comfortable going to parks
(except for the tics).

 

I honestly don't feel comfortable on this list, and apologies for not
being more helpful. I'll continue posting daily, you'll do what you
want to do; the very performative discussion of unsubscribe is a
signifier of power. I am so tired of, so worn out, by promulgations of
power. (Yes, I know, power is everywhere, etc. But there are degrees
and there are safe spaces, at least for now.)

 

Alan

 

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:06 AM Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour
 wrote:

  Dear everyone,


  Thanks so much for helping me to work through some of my
  niggles with the list. I now have a much better sense of
  what its value is to some of us at the fireside and a few
  of the people from the woods. I've also been greatly
  enjoying the recent exchanges!

  I also found Adam's email beautiful. Especially personally
  resonant because I lived for a year in Penryn unaware of
  the history of the Ordinalia there. I find the format of
  passion plays - "acts" of faith "performed" by people in
  the places where they belong - enthralling.Thanks for that
  Adam!


Annie's response was also really helpful for me. The
revolutionary impulse of the early media art initiatives that
interested me was tied up with infrastructural critique and a
desire to create a new art context 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Lichty, Patrick M]

So say me all.
Yes, we need this place, we need you.

 

From: NetBehaviour  on behalf of 
Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour 
Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity 

Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 11:12 AM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity 

Cc: Ruth Catlow 
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a 
fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

 

Hi  Alan

 

Did you read this bit?

 

"If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively own this place, and are 
willing to reflect on this occasionally - that's more than enough for me. We 
can stay with furtherfield legacy infrastructure and near-zero moderation by 
Marc and me for now (if that suits everyone)."

 

I was asking for responses to a proposal. I see your point about allowing 
people to go undeclared - I think it's a good one. 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 3:52 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour 
 wrote:

Hi Ruth,

 

I probably stand alone here. Occupy was many things, wasn't that well 
organized, I was there several times. There was always a drum circle on the 
outskirts that interrupted flow. There were outlying groups and meetings that 
weren't on the main site. It was chaotic. It was bottom up.

 

I don't like the suggestion below. First, I'm on a number of lists; on most of 
them I don't post, but I learn. This is a tradition all the way back. There are 
lists people have been silent on because they've infiltrated right-wing or 
fascist organizations. There are people on lists who don't want to be counted 
or accounted for, for many reasons. Your suggestion seems like a forced 
enrollment: come forward, tell everyone who you are, or you're gone. Another 
way to look at that: It's a privilege to be on this list and you must actively 
participate or you're gone. Or it's your duty as a member of this list to 
participate or you're gone. Or if you're shy and just interested in reading or 
possibly backchanneling only, you're gone.

 

This literally has me in tears. For me, again, lists have had the advantage of 
the commons. But this commons then has a different purpose, and if you don't 
fit in, leave. Then it's not a commons, is it? Or are you talking about a 
commons where people must announce their presence or be gone? You say "This 
revolved around efforts to create open access" - but does this mean that you 
_must_ access publicly and make your presence known? 

 

Every list I'm on, by the way, is advertising-free; people might announce they 
have a harmonica for sale (harmonica list) or a new book has come out 
(wryting-l) or they're showing somewhere (Netbehaviour), but they're not 
advertisement-based of course. People announce from within the list, not to it.

 

We have to "know who is in the woods"? In England, perhaps land and parkland is 
managed differently than in the U.S. You have to sign in at National Parks, but 
just once - in fact that's like a subscription - but you don't need to announce 
who you are on any basis to everyone else. In state parks, you just go in, Much 
as this country is horrific and lawless and armed to the teeth, we feel 
comfortable going to parks (except for the tics).

 

I honestly don't feel comfortable on this list, and apologies for not being 
more helpful. I'll continue posting daily, you'll do what you want to do; the 
very performative discussion of unsubscribe is a signifier of power. I am so 
tired of, so worn out, by promulgations of power. (Yes, I know, power is 
everywhere, etc. But there are degrees and there are safe spaces, at least for 
now.)

 

Alan

 

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:06 AM Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour 
 wrote:

Dear everyone,


Thanks so much for helping me to work through some of my niggles with the list. 
I now have a much better sense of what its value is to some of us at the 
fireside and a few of the people from the woods. I've also been greatly 
enjoying the recent exchanges!

I also found Adam's email beautiful. Especially personally resonant because I 
lived for a year in Penryn unaware of the history of the Ordinalia there. I 
find the format of passion plays - "acts" of faith "performed" by people in the 
places where they belong - enthralling.Thanks for that Adam!


Annie's response was also really helpful for me. The revolutionary impulse of 
the early media art initiatives that interested me was tied up with 
infrastructural critique and a desire to create a new art context together. 
This revolved around efforts to create open access, and co-ownership of the 
media and platforms we needed for collaboration. Bringing together FLOSS and 
Art. There is still a lot of inspiring work in this area Constant 
https://constantvzw.org/ for example. 


While I "get" the Occupy vibe here, it doesn't feel so useful as an analogy for 
this list/community as it stands at the moment. Occupy's central commitment was 
to participatory democracy. The location of occupations were chosen 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[James via NetBehaviour]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 15:05, Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

>
> Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this proposal for
> list renewal.
> ===
>
> Over a 1 month period starting xxx
> We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
>
> 1. Make a post on any topic or responding to anyone else's post
> 2. Send an email with "Happy Lurker" in the subject header
> 3. Do nothing.
>
> At the end of this time, moderators could
> 1. gather a list of everyone who posted
> 2. unsubscribe everyone else.
>
> In this way we will know who we are, we will be able to see ourselves
> collectively and know who is in the woods.
>
> This is something we can do intermittently.
> 
> If you all love, hate or have alternative suggestions to this idea I'd
> love to know.
>
>
Hi Ruth,

The invitation to post on any topic and/or respond to another post is a
good one to open up discussion to broader topics.

When I was more active on here I always took "networked distributed
creativity" as something allowing me to post, but deliberately reading it
as 'network distributed' rather than 'networked & distributed' - I'm quite
useless at networking be it technologically, or socially and professionally.

Creativity was to me always the thread weaving through it all - but I
manage to see that thread pretty much in all aspects of my life however
tenuously connected to the arts that may be - which is something I'm
interested in posting about.

Cheers
James.
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Ana Valdés via NetBehaviour]

When I was younger and the Net was young as well and we used Telnet to open
our mail and slow modems it was a war. An European war. Not a tribal war in
far Africa or in the Middle East but it contained all same elements
barbaric killings mass graves we are still opening (Tuzla, Srebrenica),
insane hatred of your neighbours, etc.
The only allowed to the besieged Sarajevo was UN trucks loaded with
medicine and foods. A French group called itself “Modems sans Frontieres”
(Modems without borders) and successful smuggled in the city several models
and some old computers.
The modems run trough a slow connection in Austria in Vienna since the
Serbs had cut away all the cables and infrastructure in Bosnia.
Through several days maybe one week or ten days everyone living in Sarajevo
was able to post to their relatives and friends abroad it was a kind of
bottles on the sea since nobody knew people email and at that time few ppl
used email abs had personal addresses.
Some of their messages was of this kind: “Dear  Dejan grandmother died in
the last shelling of our village. Pray for her she loves you so much” “Dear
Ali we hope you managed to flee the killing in Srebrenica we hear horrible
things” “Dear Zulma we hope you are coping well with things we live most on
our cellar since the shellings are random and the snipers kill everyone
daring to go openly to the town. We don’t have so much food. We hope see
you soon when this is over”.

It was touching and warm hear/read all those disembodied voices.
For me this list and all others I am on reminds me on those anonymous and
collective agora where all voices are heard.

Thinking about Bachtins superb analys about how our society denies the
right to speak and try to kidnap the discourse making it hegemonic. We need
go back to the polyphonic society Bachtin wrote about.

Ana

On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 13:31, nathaniel stern via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> Happy Lurker agrees.
>
> nathaniel stern
> http://nathanielstern.com
>
> On Jun 12, 2021, at 9:03 AM, Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour <
> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>
> Dear everyone,
>
> Thanks so much for helping me to work through some of my niggles with the
> list. I now have a much better sense of what its value is to some of us at
> the fireside and a few of the people from the woods. I've also been greatly
> enjoying the recent exchanges!
>
> I also found Adam's email beautiful. Especially personally resonant
> because I lived for a year in Penryn unaware of the history of the
> Ordinalia there. I find the format of passion plays - "acts" of faith
> "performed" by people in the places where they belong - enthralling.Thanks
> for that Adam!
>
> Annie's response was also really helpful for me. The revolutionary impulse
> of the early media art initiatives that interested me was tied up with
> infrastructural critique and a desire to create a new art context together.
> This revolved around efforts to create open access, and co-ownership of the
> media and platforms we needed for collaboration. Bringing together FLOSS
> and Art. There is still a lot of inspiring work in this area Constant
> https://constantvzw.org/ for example.
>
> While I "get" the Occupy vibe here, it doesn't feel so useful as an
> analogy for this list/community as it stands at the moment. Occupy's
> central commitment was to participatory democracy. The location of
> occupations were chosen for their symbolic significance to state-corporate
> capitalism, right? I guess we could think of this list as a prefigurative
> community resisting corporate platforms (I share everyone's love of this as
> an advertising-free space). But I detect less interest among this group in
> the question of how bottom-up decisions should be made to ensure fair
> distribution of power, and how that might in turn lead to the overthrow of
> capitalism. Occupy activists developed social technologies (some digital
> platforms, some gestures and techniques for use in large groups of people
> gathered physically) to make ALL the decisions together about all the
> things - from collective vision to organising waste-disposal. It's more
> emergent here.
>
> If we can agree that Commons are "shared cultural or material resources
> managed by communities for individual and collective benefit" then maybe
> this is what we have been working out here over the last couple of weeks
> and Netbehaviour is a kind of commons. If we can agree that we (all
> subscribers) collectively own this place, and are willing to reflect on
> this occasionally - that's more than enough for me. We can stay with
> furtherfield legacy infrastructure and near-zero moderation by Marc and me
> for now (if that suits everyone).
>
> Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this proposal for
> list renewal.
> ===
>
> Over a 1 month period starting xxx
> We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
>
> 1. Make a post on any topic or 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[nathaniel stern via NetBehaviour]

Happy Lurker agrees.

nathaniel stern
http://nathanielstern.com

> On Jun 12, 2021, at 9:03 AM, Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear everyone,
> 
> Thanks so much for helping me to work through some of my niggles with the 
> list. I now have a much better sense of what its value is to some of us at 
> the fireside and a few of the people from the woods. I've also been greatly 
> enjoying the recent exchanges!
> 
> I also found Adam's email beautiful. Especially personally resonant because I 
> lived for a year in Penryn unaware of the history of the Ordinalia there. I 
> find the format of passion plays - "acts" of faith "performed" by people in 
> the places where they belong - enthralling.Thanks for that Adam!
> 
> Annie's response was also really helpful for me. The revolutionary impulse of 
> the early media art initiatives that interested me was tied up with 
> infrastructural critique and a desire to create a new art context together. 
> This revolved around efforts to create open access, and co-ownership of the 
> media and platforms we needed for collaboration. Bringing together FLOSS and 
> Art. There is still a lot of inspiring work in this area Constant 
> https://constantvzw.org/  for example. 
> 
> While I "get" the Occupy vibe here, it doesn't feel so useful as an analogy 
> for this list/community as it stands at the moment. Occupy's central 
> commitment was to participatory democracy. The location of occupations were 
> chosen for their symbolic significance to state-corporate capitalism, right? 
> I guess we could think of this list as a prefigurative community resisting 
> corporate platforms (I share everyone's love of this as an advertising-free 
> space). But I detect less interest among this group in the question of how 
> bottom-up decisions should be made to ensure fair distribution of power, and 
> how that might in turn lead to the overthrow of capitalism. Occupy activists 
> developed social technologies (some digital platforms, some gestures and 
> techniques for use in large groups of people gathered physically) to make ALL 
> the decisions together about all the things - from collective vision to 
> organising waste-disposal. It's more emergent here.
> 
> If we can agree that Commons are "shared cultural or material resources 
> managed by communities for individual and collective benefit" then maybe this 
> is what we have been working out here over the last couple of weeks and 
> Netbehaviour is a kind of commons. If we can agree that we (all subscribers) 
> collectively own this place, and are willing to reflect on this occasionally 
> - that's more than enough for me. We can stay with furtherfield legacy 
> infrastructure and near-zero moderation by Marc and me for now (if that suits 
> everyone).
> 
> Finally, I would be curious to hear your feelings about this proposal for 
> list renewal.
> ===
> 
> Over a 1 month period starting xxx
> We invite all subscribers to do one of 3 things
> 
> 1. Make a post on any topic or responding to anyone else's post
> 2. Send an email with "Happy Lurker" in the subject header
> 3. Do nothing.
> 
> At the end of this time, moderators could 
> 1. gather a list of everyone who posted
> 2. unsubscribe everyone else.
> 
> In this way we will know who we are, we will be able to see ourselves 
> collectively and know who is in the woods.
> 
> This is something we can do intermittently.
> 
> If you all love, hate or have alternative suggestions to this idea I'd love 
> to know.
>  
> warmly
> Ruth
> 
> -- 
> Ruth Catlow 
> she/her
> Co-founder & Artistic director of Furtherfield & DECAL Decentralised Arts Lab
> +44 (0) 77370 02879 
> 
> *I will only agree to speak at events that are racially and gender balanced. 
> 
> **sending thanks 
> 
>  in advance
> 
> Furtherfield disrupts and democratises art and technology through 
> exhibitions, labs & debate, for deep exploration, open tools & free thinking. 
> furtherfield.org 
> 
> DECAL Decentralised Arts Lab is an arts, blockchain & web 3.0 technologies 
> research hub 
> for fairer, more dynamic & connected cultural ecologies & economies now. 
> decal.is 
> 
> Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company Limited by Guarantee 
> Registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205. 
> Registered business address: Carbon Accountancy, 80-83 Long Lane, London, 
> EC1A 9ET.
> 
> 
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

___
NetBehaviour mailing list

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour]

Hi  Alan

Did you read this bit?

"If we can agree that we (all subscribers) collectively own this place, and
are willing to reflect on this occasionally - that's more than enough for
me. We can stay with furtherfield legacy infrastructure and near-zero
moderation by Marc and me for now (if that suits everyone)."

I was asking for responses to a proposal. I see your point about allowing
people to go undeclared - I think it's a good one.





On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 3:52 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> Hi Ruth,
>
> I probably stand alone here. Occupy was many things, wasn't that well
> organized, I was there several times. There was always a drum circle on the
> outskirts that interrupted flow. There were outlying groups and meetings
> that weren't on the main site. It was chaotic. It was bottom up.
>
> I don't like the suggestion below. First, I'm on a number of lists; on
> most of them I don't post, but I learn. This is a tradition all the way
> back. There are lists people have been silent on because they've
> infiltrated right-wing or fascist organizations. There are people on lists
> who don't want to be counted or accounted for, for many reasons. Your
> suggestion seems like a forced enrollment: come forward, tell everyone who
> you are, or you're gone. Another way to look at that: It's a privilege to
> be on this list and you must actively participate or you're gone. Or it's
> your duty as a member of this list to participate or you're gone. Or if
> you're shy and just interested in reading or possibly backchanneling only,
> you're gone.
>
> This literally has me in tears. For me, again, lists have had the
> advantage of the commons. But this commons then has a different purpose,
> and if you don't fit in, leave. Then it's not a commons, is it? Or are you
> talking about a commons where people must announce their presence or be
> gone? You say "This revolved around efforts to create open access" - but
> does this mean that you _must_ access publicly and make your presence
> known?
>
> Every list I'm on, by the way, is advertising-free; people might announce
> they have a harmonica for sale (harmonica list) or a new book has come out
> (wryting-l) or they're showing somewhere (Netbehaviour), but they're not
> advertisement-based of course. People announce from within the list, not to
> it.
>
> We have to "know who is in the woods"? In England, perhaps land and
> parkland is managed differently than in the U.S. You have to sign in at
> National Parks, but just once - in fact that's like a subscription - but
> you don't need to announce who you are on any basis to everyone else. In
> state parks, you just go in, Much as this country is horrific and lawless
> and armed to the teeth, we feel comfortable going to parks (except for the
> tics).
>
> I honestly don't feel comfortable on this list, and apologies for not
> being more helpful. I'll continue posting daily, you'll do what you want to
> do; the very performative discussion of unsubscribe is a signifier of
> power. I am so tired of, so worn out, by promulgations of power. (Yes, I
> know, power is everywhere, etc. But there are degrees and there are safe
> spaces, at least for now.)
>
> Alan
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:06 AM Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour <
> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear everyone,
>>
>> Thanks so much for helping me to work through some of my niggles with the
>> list. I now have a much better sense of what its value is to some of us at
>> the fireside and a few of the people from the woods. I've also been greatly
>> enjoying the recent exchanges!
>>
>> I also found Adam's email beautiful. Especially personally resonant
>> because I lived for a year in Penryn unaware of the history of the
>> Ordinalia there. I find the format of passion plays - "acts" of faith
>> "performed" by people in the places where they belong - enthralling.Thanks
>> for that Adam!
>>
>> Annie's response was also really helpful for me. The revolutionary
>> impulse of the early media art initiatives that interested me was tied up
>> with infrastructural critique and a desire to create a new art context
>> together. This revolved around efforts to create open access, and
>> co-ownership of the media and platforms we needed for collaboration.
>> Bringing together FLOSS and Art. There is still a lot of inspiring work in
>> this area Constant https://constantvzw.org/ for example.
>>
>> While I "get" the Occupy vibe here, it doesn't feel so useful as an
>> analogy for this list/community as it stands at the moment. Occupy's
>> central commitment was to participatory democracy. The location of
>> occupations were chosen for their symbolic significance to state-corporate
>> capitalism, right? I guess we could think of this list as a prefigurative
>> community resisting corporate platforms (I share everyone's love of this as
>> an advertising-free space). But I detect less interest among this 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netbehaviour renewal - Occupy? a commons? by a fire, in the ruins in an ancient woodland

[Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour]

Hi Ruth,

I probably stand alone here. Occupy was many things, wasn't that well
organized, I was there several times. There was always a drum circle on the
outskirts that interrupted flow. There were outlying groups and meetings
that weren't on the main site. It was chaotic. It was bottom up.

I don't like the suggestion below. First, I'm on a number of lists; on most
of them I don't post, but I learn. This is a tradition all the way back.
There are lists people have been silent on because they've infiltrated
right-wing or fascist organizations. There are people on lists who don't
want to be counted or accounted for, for many reasons. Your suggestion
seems like a forced enrollment: come forward, tell everyone who you are, or
you're gone. Another way to look at that: It's a privilege to be on this
list and you must actively participate or you're gone. Or it's your duty as
a member of this list to participate or you're gone. Or if you're shy and
just interested in reading or possibly backchanneling only, you're gone.

This literally has me in tears. For me, again, lists have had the advantage
of the commons. But this commons then has a different purpose, and if you
don't fit in, leave. Then it's not a commons, is it? Or are you talking
about a commons where people must announce their presence or be gone? You
say "This revolved around efforts to create open access" - but does this
mean that you _must_ access publicly and make your presence known?

Every list I'm on, by the way, is advertising-free; people might announce
they have a harmonica for sale (harmonica list) or a new book has come out
(wryting-l) or they're showing somewhere (Netbehaviour), but they're not
advertisement-based of course. People announce from within the list, not to
it.

We have to "know who is in the woods"? In England, perhaps land and
parkland is managed differently than in the U.S. You have to sign in at
National Parks, but just once - in fact that's like a subscription - but
you don't need to announce who you are on any basis to everyone else. In
state parks, you just go in, Much as this country is horrific and lawless
and armed to the teeth, we feel comfortable going to parks (except for the
tics).

I honestly don't feel comfortable on this list, and apologies for not being
more helpful. I'll continue posting daily, you'll do what you want to do;
the very performative discussion of unsubscribe is a signifier of power. I
am so tired of, so worn out, by promulgations of power. (Yes, I know, power
is everywhere, etc. But there are degrees and there are safe spaces, at
least for now.)

Alan

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:06 AM Ruth Catlow via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> Dear everyone,
>
> Thanks so much for helping me to work through some of my niggles with the
> list. I now have a much better sense of what its value is to some of us at
> the fireside and a few of the people from the woods. I've also been greatly
> enjoying the recent exchanges!
>
> I also found Adam's email beautiful. Especially personally resonant
> because I lived for a year in Penryn unaware of the history of the
> Ordinalia there. I find the format of passion plays - "acts" of faith
> "performed" by people in the places where they belong - enthralling.Thanks
> for that Adam!
>
> Annie's response was also really helpful for me. The revolutionary impulse
> of the early media art initiatives that interested me was tied up with
> infrastructural critique and a desire to create a new art context together.
> This revolved around efforts to create open access, and co-ownership of the
> media and platforms we needed for collaboration. Bringing together FLOSS
> and Art. There is still a lot of inspiring work in this area Constant
> https://constantvzw.org/ for example.
>
> While I "get" the Occupy vibe here, it doesn't feel so useful as an
> analogy for this list/community as it stands at the moment. Occupy's
> central commitment was to participatory democracy. The location of
> occupations were chosen for their symbolic significance to state-corporate
> capitalism, right? I guess we could think of this list as a prefigurative
> community resisting corporate platforms (I share everyone's love of this as
> an advertising-free space). But I detect less interest among this group in
> the question of how bottom-up decisions should be made to ensure fair
> distribution of power, and how that might in turn lead to the overthrow of
> capitalism. Occupy activists developed social technologies (some digital
> platforms, some gestures and techniques for use in large groups of people
> gathered physically) to make ALL the decisions together about all the
> things - from collective vision to organising waste-disposal. It's more
> emergent here.
>
> If we can agree that Commons are "shared cultural or material resources
> managed by communities for individual and collective benefit" then maybe
> this is what we have been working out here over the last