We opted for Ostrom’s law (at least at first)

When we were planning the Madrid workshop on 'reimagining research communication' we had to decide whether to start with Ostrom's design principles (that you mentioned) and then work down from there, or to just leave it open to whatever everyone wanted for the future, whether it ended up resembling a commons or not. We decided to go with the latter (even though it was a little scary). In effect, we were following Ostrom's Law:

A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory.

Most commons actually come about in this ad hoc sort of manner, and I would love as things go further to compare and connect Ostrom's design principles to the principles that we are building as a community, to see where we have met her design principles, where we have holes, or where we could restructure things a bit. Of course, the most important thing, in all of this, is the community and the process of converging on these principles together.

Thanks Bruce. You’re spot on.

We need a place to explore these principles and concepts, and we're working on a way to do that. We need to keep all these stories, and we need a way to allow others to add their own as well as time goes on. Thanks for your willingness to help!

1. Clearly defined boundaries: members who have rights to withdraw resources from commons must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the commons.

2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions… appropriation rules restricting time, place, etc. are related to local conditions… and also to provision rules requiring labor, material, and/or money

3. collective-choice arrangements: most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules

4. Monitoring: monitors, who actively audit the commons and behaviors, are accountable to the appropriators, or are the appropriators.

5. Graduated sanctions: appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions by other appropriators and their agents

6. conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators/officials.

7. minimal recognition of rights to organize:  The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities…

8. (spécial case for larger systems: Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

Happy to help.

I'm interested in the intersection between principles and patterns moving forward.

Good suggestions!

Dear Bruce:

Yes, we agree that each of these needs place for discussion and each of these items will be accompanied by appropriate text.  This was just the first step in the process.  We hope you will join us in fleshing these out!

Great list!

Just a note here that any list of principles also needs a connection to a text-space where the arguments for these can be explored and their use illuminated. The real work of principles is to foster an alignment of interests and a confluence of those collective virtues that the commons will be grounded in. For example, "producing the best scholarship" is mentioned. Certainly there could be a related text that describes this, and which can be edited and commented on and revised over time.  Tony Hsieh's book on Zappos offers a section on core values [Hsieh, Tony (2010-05-20). Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose (p. 155). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.] that might be useful. (Note: Zappos is the largest company now experimenting in Holocracy.)

I'm not sure what platform this would require. A wiki comes to mind. Or GitHub.