--Poor Richard (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Hello. I like the approach of a "commons bias" as opposed to a paradigmatic (absolute, categorical) imperative. Commons should be governed by rules of subsidiarity, and protected from harm, so conditional enclosure belongs in the commons toolkit.
--Poor Richard (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I very much like the approach of re-conceptualizing. Many dimmons (digital commons) do not conceive them selves as commons, and it is yet unclear what makes a dimmons a commons from the eye of other type of commoners.
- Then I miss the part of building relationships.
"Let us consider what if: Copyright and patent are not the first knowledge enclosures, but only "modern" enforcement of inequalities in what may be known and communicated? Copyright and patent reform and licensing are merely small parts of a universe of knowledge commoning, including transparency, privacy, collaboration, all of science and culture? Our strategy puts commons values first, and views narrow incentives with skepticism? The value of commons is difficult to quantify – but necessary. We grapple with that, alongside all commoners."
It is a bit dense or difficult to read as questions. Seems more affirmations that would require more explanation to absolve or understand. They are very valuable as the conclusions of your though, but difficult as questions in my view.
- I like the point of pointing to the non-goals, too. It would be good to have an active moderation that actually help to maintain that plan.
- The schedual seems still too undefined.
- To have a writing outcome I think it would be good.
- Hello! I admit the "let us consider" items are a bit dense, and maybe moreso as questions. I feel uneasy about making them affirmations, and "what if?" is a device -- I literally want to consider what to do if we agree the following a true/good. But I'll keep thinking about it.
- There will definitely be active moderation/facilitation throughout!
- The schedule is too undefined, working on that! I will follow up further in mail. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)