Maybe better than grey areas, what might be useful for a constructive
self assessment / introspective of the communities would be to come up
with a three set of specific attributes (but not mixed) that that might
help on positioning themselves and take decisions.
1. A first set could be the core characteristics related to the primary
subject, which IMHO is very much 2nd point of the Guadalajara
Declaration. That also helps in distinguishing fundamental things
like a community oriented initiative from a corporate business just
looking for customers by appearing as a community or running a
platform (ex: uber, etc...). Not to say what's right or not, but to
know what's really about.
2. Secondly could came another set which might help in evaluating the
robustness, sustainability, things like if is running on just a
declaration of intentions, or already having a written by laws, if
there is a governance in place, and it's properties. That would be
very much similar to Ostrom principles, etc. That might help CN to
build their own roadmap to develop themselves.
3. Last set might be collateral attributes, that might be nice to know
or perspectives that can help, but not directly related to the
previous main subject. The support for free software/hardware you
mention comes here, I mean, could be the case of orgs. who don't
care on that, and others who do their best effort (like the example
If some of this last set of attributes becomes mandatory or has to
be prioritized from the above, it will shows you that although in
some cases it might still be considered as a CN, it is not their
main objective but another.
my 1.5 cents ;)
A second might help in evaluating
El 16/8/18 a les 21:50, panayotis antoniadis ha escrit:
Hi Roger, all,
On 09.08.2018 11:05, Roger Baig Viñas wrote:
I dare say I particularly have a rather clear
idea on the criteria for
classifying initiatives the categories of "clearly yes", "maybe
yes/maybe not" and "definitely not". But this is for my particular use
and I would dare not impose these criteria to anybody.
From my point of view,
sharing our personal views (without imposing
them) on what is and what is not a Community Network is a very valuable
And now I think that perhaps this is a better starting point (the
diverse views) than the "single" definition provided in
And perhaps this is a nice way to share our views. Put various examples
of CNs in these three different boxes:
green (clearly yes), gray (maybe), and red (no) and add a few words on
why this is so.
While doing this exercise myself I would like to add an important
dimension in putting CNs into this boxes (values vs. practice):
There are many CNs that follow in principle certain values, but in
practice is difficult for them to follow. The most common example is
free software. And to take the example of Sarantaporo.gr, while its
members fully support free software, in practice the network is running
on proprietary software (Ubiquiti). I think that this fact shouldn't
exclude Sarantaporo.gr from being characterized a CN in a definition
that puts priority on free software, because Sarantaporo.gr is actually
ready to fight for this cause and would put its name under a related
open letter, for example.
Of course, values are easy to declare and the practice should also play
an important role. But just saying, that the conditions are different in
different contexts and CNs should not only be judged by their current
practice but also by their intentions.
My 2 cents.
P.S. Are we going to have this chat after all?? I think it is better now
than later in September when everyone will return from vacations :-)
Council mailing list