COMMONS #02 - Commons as a Universal Framework, A cloudsters Perspective
Co-Creating Sustainable Futures, One Commons at a Time
Hello Friends & Followers,
welcome to COMMONS #02. Last time we opened the doors for Building the cloudsters COMMONS; today we zoom out. Think of this post as a field guide: how any individual, project, business or city can plug into a Universal Commons Framework. Grab a coffee, skim the headers, and keep what sparks. Let’s build sustainable futures that feel different — together.
1. Foundations and History of the Commons
What are Commons? “Commons” (known in German as Allmende or Gemeingüter) refers to resources or goods that are jointly used and managed by a community. All members of the community have usage rights, governed by shared rules to sustain the resource. This principle is deeply rooted in human history: many indigenous societies practiced communal land and resource management for centuries. For example, an indigenous grazing-land management system in Ethiopia has successfully maintained the sustainable use of about 11,000 hectares of grassland for roughly 400 years (Patterns of Commoning | The Commons Strategies Group). Commons were also widespread in medieval Europe – e.g. village pastures, forests, and streams – over which peasants held collective use rights. These communal resources often served as survival safety nets: they provided access to firewood, grazing land, wild fruits, and fish, buffering communities during crop failures or times of need (Commons & Crises: Community resilience from feudal Europe to today – Shareable). Use of the commons was regulated by customary law to prevent overuse . It was only with the Enclosure Movement in the early modern period that many commons were privatized, a process which in England sparked protests as land and resources were taken from local communities.
In the 20th century, the commons model was at times viewed skeptically. In 1968 the biologist Garrett Hardin introduced the notion of the “tragedy of the commons”: if everyone may use a shared resource without limit, Hardin argued, selfish behavior will lead to overuse and ultimately the destruction of the resource (Tragedy of the commons – Wikipedia). Hardin maintained that without externally imposed constraints (whether by the state or by privatization) the tragic over-exploitation of common resources was inevitable. This scenario, however, assumed a lack of community agreements or rules. In reality, numerous examples have shown that communities can indeed self-regulate to avoid depletion. Political scientist Elinor Ostrom famously refuted Hardin’s pessimism. Studying countless commons around the world, she found that many communities successfully establish long-term rules for resource use through local cooperation . For instance, parts of the Swiss Alps have alpine pastures that have been managed under locally crafted, solidarity-based rules for over 500 years. Ostrom demonstrated that neither strict central control nor complete privatization is required to sustain shared resources. For this work, she became the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009. Her landmark study Governing the Commons documented over 800 cases and provided key insights into why commons can succeed. Ostrom’s findings are considered an empirical rebuke to Hardin’s doom scenario – proving that communities, through local self-organization and the culture of commoning (collectively caring for shared resources), can manage resources sustainably without ending in tragedy.
In recent decades, commons have undergone a renaissance as a cultural practice. Modern movements are reviving and reimagining commons traditions – from community gardens to open-source software projects – viewing commons as a living practice of sharing and cooperation. Indigenous concepts such as Buen Vivir in Latin America or Ubuntu in parts of Africa likewise emphasize harmonious human–nature relationships, echoing the ethos of the commons. Today the idea of the commons extends beyond tangible resources to intangibles like knowledge (for example, Wikipedia as a global knowledge commons) and even to global common goods such as the climate and oceans. As a result, commons have re-entered the center of discourse on sustainable development and community-centric culture. This historical context informs cloudsters’ philosophy: we recognize commons as a timeless foundation for cooperative, purpose-driven innovation – a basis for re-engineering our future systems from the local to the global level.
2. Governance Models and Principles
A central success factor for any commons is an appropriate governance model – in other words, the rules and institutions for joint management of the shared resource. Elinor Ostrom identified eight famous design principles for long-enduring, well-functioning commons. These principles were observed repeatedly in communities that managed to govern their resources sustainably over generations. In brief, Ostrom’s principles are:
Clear Boundaries: The community of users and the resource itself must be clearly defined – i.e. who is entitled to use what. This prevents unentitled parties from free-riding and makes responsibilities clear to everyone.
Rules Suited to Local Conditions: Usage rules should fit local needs and conditions. Every commons is different; the community develops tailored norms (taking into account seasons, ecological limits, etc.).
Participatory Decision-Making: The resource beneficiaries should have a say in creating and modifying the rules. When people co-create the rules, they identify more strongly with them and are more likely to comply.
Community Monitoring: Compliance with the rules is monitored by members of the community. For example, users might appoint guardians or mutually check each other’s behavior to catch violations early.
Graduated Sanctions: Rule-breakers face graduated sanctions. Minor offenses incur mild consequences (a warning, small fine), whereas repeated or serious violations receive stricter penalties. This graduated approach keeps the community intact and encourages learning, rather than immediately expelling members for first offenses.
Low-Cost Conflict Resolution: Accessible, low-cost mechanisms exist to resolve conflicts. Disputes can be addressed internally or mediated locally without resorting to prohibitively expensive legal proceedings.
Recognition of Self-Governance: The community’s right to self-organize and make its own rules is recognized by higher authorities. Local self-governance should not be undermined by external forces; ideally it is supported by them.
Nested Layers of Organization (Polycentricity): For very large commons, there are multiple layers of organization, with local groups integrated into a broader network. In other words, commons governance can be fractal or multi-level: a local water users’ group might be part of a regional watershed council, which in turn links into global agreements. This nested structure allows coordination at scale without sacrificing local autonomy.
Successful commons often embody many of these principles. A classic example is the Swiss village of Törbel: as far back as 1517, the villagers agreed that no household could graze more cows on the alpine meadow than they could feed over the winter on their own land. This locally adapted rule (Principle 2), with clearly defined users (Principle 1) and mutual monitoring, ensured the pasture’s preservation and fair use for centuries. Such local institutions prove that self-organization can work – often better than either centralized control or market-only approaches. In cloudsters’ terms, this underscores the power of peer stewardship and self-governance: communities managing resources through trust, reciprocal responsibility, and co-created rules.
Beyond traditional commons like pastures and forests, modern contexts have spurred new governance models for digital and urban commons. Online communities such as Wikipedia rely on open participation and transparent decision processes. Decisions are made by community consensus; any contributor can join discussions, and the project operates through self-organization under volunteer administrators. There are refined mechanisms for dispute resolution (mediation committees) and quality control, all carried out by the community itself. This model of open, peer-based governance – based on trust, reputation, and voluntary coordination – has turned Wikipedia into one of the world’s largest knowledge commons. Similarly, open-source software projects often use meritocratic governance structures, where contributions are evaluated on quality and experienced maintainers act as coordinators. Shared guidelines (like codes of conduct and open licenses) help maintain the project as a commons, ensuring that the code remains a shared resource despite involvement from companies or individuals.
In recent years, there have even been experiments with blockchain-based governance for commons. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) use smart contracts to encode decision rules in software. This allows communities to make collective decisions without a central authority, with outcomes automatically executed on the blockchain. Blockchain technology enables transparent, tamper-proof records of transactions and votes. Early applications show promise: for example, the GitCoin platform funds open-source development through blockchain-based community “crowd funds,” where contributions and rewards are distributed fairly via smart contracts. Such approaches could democratize participation in digital commons, since every member can have a token-based vote and all actions are publicly auditable. That said, these systems are still in their infancy – issues of power concentration (e.g. “whale” investors with many tokens), inclusivity, and legal recognition of DAOs are still being worked out.
Overall, good commons governance depends on clear rules, adaptability to local conditions, user participation, and trust-building. Whether on a village pasture or a global internet platform, when people jointly negotiate fair rules and self-organize to enforce them, shared resources can be sustained and used equitably over the long term. Modern technologies can assist in this (as we explore in Section 4), but the fundamental principles remain transparency, participation, accountability, and self-organization. This aligns closely with cloudsters’ governance ethos: co-creation of norms by stakeholders, decentralized decision-making, and fostering a culture of accountable, peer-driven stewardship. By adhering to these principles, commons can thrive as dynamic, participatory systems-of-systems – adaptable networks where local units govern themselves while also collaborating at larger scales, just as cloudsters models its own community governance.
3. Economic Perspectives of the Commons
The commons offer a sustainable alternative to purely market-driven or state-controlled economic models. They are often described as a “third way” – a mode of resource management that exists between the market and the state. Unlike markets, which are guided primarily by profit motives, or government bureaucracies, which rely on centralized control, commons are grounded in shared benefit and collective responsibility. Commons can flourish in the “in-between spaces” overlooked by state and market, or coexist with them, transforming people from passive consumers into active co-managers of their living conditions. In a world of growing inequality and ecological crisis, there is rising interest in commons as part of a new economic order – one that cloudsters and many others see as crucial for a sustainable and equitable future.
Value creation in commons: Commons prioritize the use-value of resources over exchange-value or profit. In other words, resources are valued for their benefit to the community – e.g. the fertility of a shared pasture for all villagers – rather than for a price they might fetch on an open market. This focus often helps commons avoid the negative externalities that plague purely market-based approaches: since the community’s well-being depends on the resource, users have a built-in incentive to use it sustainably. For example, in traditional commons, usage rights were often proportional to one’s contribution or need – such as allowing a farmer to graze only as many animals as they could feed over winter on their own fodder. Rules like these ensure that overuse and unfair appropriation are avoided: each family contributes and receives a fair share, and no individual can take vastly more than others. Studies have shown that commons-based management can be more efficient and equitable than private models, because it leverages local knowledge and accounts for social and environmental costs. For instance, in Törbel (Switzerland), collective alpine pasture management led to higher productivity and better ecosystem preservation than if the land had been divided into private plots. In a sense, commons internalize what markets externalize: the community has an intrinsic interest in preserving the resource for future generations, which is economically beneficial in the long run.
Financing models: The commons economy often requires creative financing, since traditional investment (seeking maximal return) may not readily apply. Many commons rely on member contributions – in the form of labor (volunteer work in a community garden), membership fees (as in cooperatives), or time donations. Cooperative enterprises, for example, raise start-up capital from member shares rather than stock investors. A prominent case is the Mondragón Cooperative network in the Basque region: today it encompasses over 80,000 employees across ~110 self-managed businesses. Every worker is also an owner (“worker-member”), typically contributing an initial capital amount (around €15,000) upon joining; in return, all share in the profits and have voting rights. Mondragón shows that even large industrial firms can be financed and run in a commons-oriented way – for instance, the federation dedicates 10% of annual surplus to a community fund for social and development projects. Another financing approach is crowdfunding for commons: projects like Wikipedia or open-source software receive donations from thousands of supporters worldwide. Grant programs and public funds have also emerged specifically for commons – e.g. UN funds for community forest management, or “commons incubator” initiatives in international development. City governments are beginning to back commons projects financially as well (for example, through participatory budgeting that allocates public money to neighborhood commons initiatives).
Fair distribution of benefits: In commons, any surplus or value generated is typically reinvested in the community or the resource’s upkeep, rather than extracted as private profit. This tends to promote greater equality. Cooperatives, for instance, operate under the principle of “one person, one vote” – decision-making power is not based on capital contribution, which prevents concentration of power and extreme inequality. Profits in co-ops are often either reinvested or distributed among all members, rather than flowing to a few external shareholders. Historically, even village commons would use proceeds from collectively sold goods (like timber) for communal purposes – local improvements or supporting the poor – rather than dividing cash based on who had more land. Thus, commons have a wealth-spreading effect: they keep value circulation local and among those who contribute, instead of letting it accumulate externally. Commons can thereby help reduce inequality or prevent it from arising in the first place. Studies indicate, for example, that community-managed forests in Nepal significantly alleviated poverty, since all members gained access to firewood, fodder, and some income from forest products – benefits that, without the commons regime, would have accrued only to a few landowners.
Commons vs. Market and State: In a pure market model, those with greater purchasing power tend to secure disproportionate access to resources, while the poor are left out. Commons, by contrast, uphold access for all community members as a core principle. The state, on the other hand, can be slow or unresponsive to local needs due to bureaucracy or one-size-fits-all policies, whereas commons leverage local knowledge and flexibility. Commons are particularly valuable where neither market nor state provides satisfactory solutions: for global common goods (climate, high seas) or local public goods (parks, community infrastructure) that markets undersupply and states may neglect. In many cities today, we see the rise of urban commons precisely because government retreats from certain services and the market fails to meet social needs. Community Wi-Fi networks, urban gardens, tool libraries, and time-banks are all citizen-driven initiatives ensuring affordable, inclusive access to resources. They increase local resilience and push back against the privatization of public space. These grassroots economic activities show that citizens can proactively fill gaps and create shared value where markets and states fall short.
In sum, the commons perspective offers a vision for a sustainable economy that prioritizes needs fulfillment, fair distribution, and long-term stewardship over maximized profit or centralized control. Through community financing, local control, and equitable sharing of benefits, robust economic forms emerge that can better withstand shocks. Indeed, in the face of global challenges (climate crisis, inequality), commons-based economies are increasingly seen as promising ways to rebalance the relationship between society, economy, and nature – aligning with cloudsters’ mission to engineer sustainable futures. In cloudsters’ work, we emphasize designing ventures around higher purpose and shared value, and we provide tools (like the Commons Engineering Framework) to help initiatives transition from traditional business models to commons-based models. For example, cloudsters encourages examining any project through four key value dimensions – Purpose, Offers, Operations, and Agents – to ensure it serves a clear common good purpose, provides inclusive offers (services/resources) as a commons, runs on collaborative and open operations, and engages the right agents (people, communities, partners) in co-creation. This structured approach helps blend the economic perspective of commons with practical design, so that enterprises old and new can operate “for the common good” by design.
4. Technological Enablers of Commons
Technology plays a pivotal role in enabling and expanding modern commons. Digital tools have massively simplified cooperation across great distances, giving rise to entirely new “commons spaces.” A prime example is the free and open-source software movement. As early as the 1980s, Richard Stallman’s GNU Project envisioned software as a shared good, freely available to all. In the 1990s, the Linux operating system emerged – developed collaboratively by volunteers around the globe – which today underpins countless servers and devices. The development of Linux (and thousands of other open-source projects) would hardly have been possible without the Internet. Online platforms like GitHub allow distributed communities to work together on code, manage versions, and share knowledge. The result is a vast repository of digital code commons available to everyone – from web browsers (Firefox) to office suites (LibreOffice) to entire operating systems – unleashing innovation without proprietary barriers. These digital commons have demonstrated that collective intelligence can yield powerful results: through open participation and broad access, information and solutions can often be gathered and improved faster than in closed systems.
Another enabler was the advent of Web 2.0 and collaborative online platforms. Projects like Wikipedia showcase how technology can orchestrate millions of tiny contributions into a shared masterpiece. Wikis, forums, and version control systems make it possible for knowledge to be co-created and continuously updated on a global scale. Launched in 2001, Wikipedia now comprises over 55 million articles in hundreds of languages, written by volunteers worldwide. It stands as a prototype of a digital commons built on open access, community governance, and a commitment to collective benefit. The underlying tech (wiki software and the open internet) means anyone with access can contribute, and thanks to transparent rules (Creative Commons licensing, public edit history), the knowledge remains a public good.
Open licenses and open data have been crucial legal-technological enablers for commons. The Creative Commons (CC) licenses, for example, give creators simple tools to dedicate their work to the public under certain conditions (like attribution or share-alike). This “Some Rights Reserved” model loosens the restrictions of traditional copyright (“All Rights Reserved”) and greatly facilitates sharing of knowledge and culture. Thanks to open licensing, a huge pool of free content has emerged: by 2019, nearly 2 billion works (texts, images, videos, etc.) had been published under CC licenses. Platforms like Flickr, YouTube, and Wikimedia Commons host millions of freely usable media files. In education, Open Educational Resources (OER) and open-access research publications are creating knowledge commons by making academic outputs publicly available. Technologies for data repositories, digital libraries, and search tools (e.g. the EU’s Open Data Portal) are key infrastructure to enable access to this shared knowledge.
Blockchain technologies have, since the 2010s, further expanded the commons toolkit. As noted, blockchains allow trust through technology: a blockchain is a decentralized ledger that permanently and transparently records transactions. For commons, this means communities can securely document things like membership rights, contributions, or votes without needing a central gatekeeper. Platforms like Ethereum enable smart contracts – self-executing agreements – which can automate complex governance rules. This has given rise to decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) that, for example, manage community treasuries or conduct votes weighted by tokens. In digital commons, blockchain could facilitate new funding and incentive models: for instance, GitCoin (mentioned earlier) rewards open-source developers with cryptocurrency for their contributions, effectively creating a kind of community currency for code work. Pilot projects are also exploring using blockchains to manage ecological commons – e.g. community-run carbon credit systems where smart contracts distribute CO₂ certificates to local groups for conservation efforts. These technologies are still experimental and must prove themselves in practice, but they open exciting possibilities for global, trust-minimized collaboration, especially where traditional trust is hard to establish.
Looking ahead, digital agents and artificial intelligence (AI) offer new frontiers for commons support. AI and automation can assist commons in numerous ways. On one hand, machine learning and sensor networks can help process large data sets, which is useful for monitoring shared resources. Examples: networks of environmental sensors with AI analytics can detect wildfires early in community-managed forests, or machine-learning models can predict fish stocks for a fisherfolk commons to set sustainable catch quotas. On the other hand, intelligent agents can take over routine tasks – moderating online forums, flagging vandalism on wikis, or suggesting where content or code contributions are needed. In the future, AI-driven systems might act as a sort of “digital steward” in service of the community, helping allocate resources optimally (for example, managing energy distribution in a local microgrid commons) and watching for rule compliance – all under human oversight and ethical guidelines.
A critical consideration is making AI itself part of the commons discourse. Today’s large AI models (like GPT-based systems) are trained on vast public datasets – which are effectively part of our digital commons. There is growing discussion about how the value generated by these models can be returned to the public, and how their development can be guided by the common good. Some advocate for an “AI Commons,” where data, models, and AI services are openly shared and jointly governed. UNESCO, for example, has emphasized that knowledge – including data and AI – should serve as a knowledge commons benefiting everyone. This might involve new governance models to ensure AI systems produce broad benefits and are not controlled solely by a few big corporations. Technologically, it points toward open AI platforms, transparent algorithms (open-source AI), community involvement in governing training data, and regulations steering AI development toward societal goals.
In sum, modern technologies are ubiquitous enablers for commons – from the simple smartphone that facilitates community communication to sophisticated blockchains and AI. They make coordination, transparency, and participation possible on unprecedented scales. However, technology alone is not a commons panacea; it must be embedded in socio-technical systems – meaning it must be adopted by users, paired with sensible rules, and directed toward community objectives. Used wisely, though, technology can act as a multiplier for commons, transferring age-old commons ideas into new domains and scaling them up. A striking example is the emergence of global citizen science commons: volunteers worldwide share climate and biodiversity data via online platforms (e.g. Globe at Night, iNaturalist), which are then analyzed by researchers and AI – a commons of data and insights that simply wouldn’t be feasible without digital tools. The future trajectory of the commons will largely depend on our ability to shape these technological tools to augment community goods rather than just private gain. In cloudsters’ practice, this means advocating for open digital infrastructures, ethical AI co-creators, and digital commons that amplify human collaboration. Technology, in the cloudsters view, should serve as an ecosystem of tools that empower communities – helping them to self-organize, learn, and innovate together for the planet and society.
5. Cultural and Social Dimensions of Commons
Commons are not just economic or legal structures – they are living socio-cultural practices. Participation in commons projects and communities profoundly affects social fabric and culture. A key effect is the strengthening of community bonds (community building): by managing resources together, people develop a stronger sense of “we,” build trust in one another, and establish shared norms. Research on urban commons shows that such projects create fertile ground for social cohesion and resilience. In cities, where anonymity often prevails, initiatives like community gardens, tool libraries, or neighborhood workshops forge new relationships and networks. Regular interaction – be it at a food co-op’s weekly meeting or a Saturday workday in the community garden – builds trust and mutual understanding. Over time, participants accumulate social capital: an invisible wealth of connections, goodwill, and mutual support that makes communities more resilient to crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, neighborhoods with active commons initiatives were quicker to organize solidarity networks (shopping help for the elderly, DIY mask exchanges, etc.), because trust and coordination structures were already in place.
Commons participation also contributes to identity and culture. People often come to define themselves in part through the community projects they invest time and energy in. A fisherman who is part of a generations-old cooperative, or a farmer in an alpine commons collective, feels pride and belonging through that role. Rituals and traditions tend to grow around commons: for example, communities might hold harvest festivals after a successful season on shared fields, or observe customary practices like the tequio tradition in indigenous Mexican communities (communal work days for collective goods). These cultural practices further reinforce the sense of community and anchor the values of sharing and stewardship in collective memory. In some indigenous communities, commons are even embedded in spiritual worldviews – land and water are seen as sacred Mother Earth, to be jointly protected. Such perspectives foster reverence and a careful attitude toward nature, viewing humans as part of a larger web rather than dominators of it. They provide cultural values – respect, gratitude, balance – that underpin commons principles at a deep level.
Engaging in commons tends to build resilience and promote social learning. Shared resources often make groups more resilient to adversity. Historically, commons served as social safety nets (see Section 1); the same holds true today. In hard times – economic crises, natural disasters – communities with strong internal ties and shared access to resources can respond better. They can activate local solidarity mechanisms (community funds, mutual aid networks) or use shared infrastructure (e.g. a communal well during a drought) to cushion the impact. Additionally, commons are arenas of collective learning: as people work out how best to manage a resource together, they learn skills in compromise, understanding ecological limits, and practicing democratic processes. These experiences teach competencies that carry over into other civic realms. Joint management fosters empathy and responsibility – one directly sees how one’s actions affect others, cultivating consideration and cooperation. Such social skills are essential for any functioning community or society well beyond the immediate commons project.
Crucially, the process of commoning often contributes to broader societal change by spreading new ideas and values. The act of coming together – making decisions collectively, sharing resources, resolving conflicts – is democracy in practice and can inspire participants to seek greater participation in formal politics. People active in grassroots commons sometimes push for more voice in decision-making at higher levels as well. Moreover, successful commons challenge prevailing notions of property and public good. The popularity of Wikipedia and open-source software, for example, has ingrained the idea of open knowledge in society. Today, many people expect scientific research to be open-access, reflecting a cultural shift toward “knowledge as a public good”. Similarly, urban gardening movements have increased appreciation for urban green spaces and citizen-led urban planning. Commons projects can thus spark policy and cultural dialogue: in some cities, citizen movements demand a “Right to the City” that echoes commons principles – reclaiming public spaces, instituting participatory budgets, etc..
The rise of the sharing culture in the 2010s is another example. Although much of the so-called “sharing economy” was commercialized (think ridesharing and home rentals), it nonetheless normalized the idea of access over ownership. Car-sharing, tool libraries, food-sharing – much of this has commons roots and is gradually changing consumer habits, especially among younger generations, who are more open to communal use models. Over time, this can lead to a cultural shift away from individualistic consumption toward a more collaborative ethos.
Commons also provide spaces for innovation and inclusion. In makerspaces or hackerspaces (community-run workshops), diverse people come together to share knowledge and skills – often sparking inventions or social enterprises in the process. Commons can actively include groups that are otherwise marginalized: for instance, “intercultural gardens” where refugees and locals garden side by side create interactions and integration opportunities. The culture of commoning tends to be one of openness, solidarity, and equality, which shapes the identities of participants and can contribute to a more inclusive society. Studies suggest that being part of a commons allows people to see themselves as members of a solutions-oriented community, rather than as powerless individuals facing global problems. This sense of agency and togetherness is a vital cultural value that commons bring into the world – one that cloudsters deeply embraces. Indeed, cloudsters views each commons initiative as not only solving a local problem but also empowering its participants and seeding a more collaborative, hopeful culture. By co-creating solutions, people shift from feeling victimized by issues like climate change or inequality to feeling like active contributors to change, which is psychologically and socially transformative.
6. Applications and Practical Examples
Commons principles can be found in remarkably diverse contexts – local and global, physical and digital. Below is a selection of global best practices and examples that illustrate the spectrum of commons in action:
Wikipedia – A Knowledge Commons: The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is one of the most famous commons projects. Since 2001, millions of volunteers have written over 55 million articles in nearly 300 languages. All that knowledge is available free of charge and can be reused under an open license. Wikipedia demonstrates that large-scale collaborative processes can work when there is open participation, shared rules, and community governance. Despite challenges like vandalism or quality control, Wikipedia remains a living example of how the world’s knowledge can be created and maintained as a commons. It is hosted by a nonprofit foundation and funded by community donations – a functioning model beyond market or state control.
Linux and Open Source Software – Digital Commons: The GNU/Linux operating system and thousands of other open-source software projects (from the Apache web server to WordPress to the VLC media player) showcase the power of digital commons. Volunteer developers, companies, and users collaboratively write code, report bugs, and continually improve the product. The outputs are released to all as a public good. This “peer production” model is enabled by open-source licenses that guarantee the code remains free to use and modify. Today, a large portion of the internet’s infrastructure and many devices run on open-source software – an immense social value created through communal cooperation. Projects like Mozilla’s Firefox browser or LibreOffice are supported partly by donations or foundations, and partly by contributions from firms that benefit from the shared development. These represent new hybrid models between commons and market actors, but crucially the commons (the software code) is preserved – companies might profit from services around the free software, but not from the software itself. The open-source ethos has even spread to hardware (e.g. the Arduino electronics platform), bringing the commons approach to physical technology too.
Creative Commons & Open Content: The Creative Commons movement has led to a wealth of free cultural and educational content – images, music, texts, learning materials. Platforms like Flickr host tens of millions of CC-licensed photographs, and Wikimedia Commons offers over 90 million media files for free use. In education, Open Educational Resources (OER) provide free textbooks and courseware (initiatives like Khan Academy or MIT OpenCourseWare publish materials openly). Academic publishing is also shifting, with more journals and repositories embracing open-access models to make research papers part of the knowledge commons. A 2019 report estimated that over 2 billion works online are under open licenses. This abundant commons of culture and knowledge fuels creativity, learning, and research globally by breaking down access barriers.
Cooperatives – Economic Commons: Since the 19th century, the cooperative movement has practiced principles of shared ownership and democratic control in business. One standout example, introduced earlier, is Spain’s Mondragón cooperative complex. Founded in 1956 by a small group of workers, it has grown into a federation of about 95 cooperative enterprises spanning industry, retail, finance, and education. With over 80,000 employees and around €13 billion in revenue (2022), Mondragón is the world’s largest cooperative network. All employees are co-owners; decisions follow the “one member, one vote” rule; and profits are reinvested or distributed among members and community funds. In its 60+ year history, Mondragón has never had to lay off a member for economic reasons – during downturns, they preferred internal transfers or temporary pay adjustments, which showcases the model’s stability and solidarity. Mondragón proves that companies can compete globally without being traditional corporations – it is a living example of commons principles (cooperative ownership, community benefit) operating at large scale in the modern economy. Worldwide, there are hundreds of thousands of co-ops: credit unions and mutual banks, housing cooperatives, agricultural co-ops, renewable energy co-ops, and more, all of which have a commons character since they are collectively owned and prioritize member service over capital returns.
Community-Managed Natural Resources: There are countless cases of local communities successfully managing natural commons. One often-cited success story is Nepal’s community forests. In the 1980s–90s, Nepal’s government transferred about one-third of national forest lands to thousands of local Forest User Groups for self-governance. Today over 22,000 such community groups – involving ~3 million households – steward around 1.2 million hectares of forest. The results: between 1992 and 2016, Nepal’s forest cover nearly doubled from 26% to 45% of the country’s area. Local communities, through sustainable harvesting and active protection, reversed deforestation and regenerated ecosystems. At the same time, incomes improved – villages invested surplus revenue from forest products into schools, roads, and microcredit programs. Nepal’s example shows that commons approaches to environmental resources can achieve better ecological and social outcomes than state control alone. Similar community management models exist worldwide: for example, fisher cooperatives in some Philippine coastal towns that establish no-take zones and enforce sustainable fishing; indigenous tribes in the Amazon who autonomously manage vast rainforest territories (often with lower deforestation rates than adjacent state parks); or the ancient subak irrigation cooperatives in Bali, where farmers have for centuries collectively managed water distribution for rice paddies. All these cases share key elements: local participation, traditional knowledge, and self-imposed usage limits – precisely the ingredients of Ostrom’s principles.
Urban Commons and Community Projects: Cities, too, are fertile ground for commons initiatives. One example is the Allmende-Kontor community garden on the former Tempelhof airfield in Berlin – a large garden commons started in 2011. About 700 citizens came together to cultivate raised beds on this public land. Each person tends their own plot, but infrastructure like pathways, water points, and compost areas are maintained collectively. Regular assemblies (plenums) are held to set the rules and manage resource sharing. The group’s charter explicitly emphasizes sustainable and solidarity-based use of the space, with rules created by the community itself. The project has created an impressive green oasis in the middle of the city and is also a social experiment: people from all walks of life collaborate, exchange gardening knowledge, and directly experience the benefits of a commons (free harvests, shared space, social connections). Despite minor issues – e.g. the occasional outsider helping themselves to vegetables without permission – the model works and is often cited as a successful urban commons. Other urban commons examples include community-owned energy installations (neighbors forming co-ops to install solar panels on their roofs together), repair cafés (open workshops where people gather to fix household items cooperatively), or public book-sharing shelves on street corners. In many cities, co-housing projects and collective living spaces operate on commons principles: residents share and co-manage facilities and resources (gardens, kitchens, tools, etc.), applying the commons ethos to housing.
Regenerative Ecosystem Initiatives: With sustainability in mind, many commons projects explicitly aim to regenerate ecosystems. One example is the Ecosystem Restoration Camps movement: volunteer-run camps where degraded lands are collectively restored through tree planting and permaculture. Participants often self-fund their stay and share knowledge and labor to revive soils, plant forests, and restore water cycles – a commons-based approach to healing the land. Such camps now exist in Spain, parts of Africa, California, and beyond. Likewise, local permaculture communities in places like rural India bring farmers together to reintroduce sustainable traditional farming methods cooperatively. Seed-sharing initiatives can also be seen as regenerative commons: in community seed banks, farmers or gardeners pool and exchange heirloom seeds, collectively preserving crop diversity outside of the commercial seed market. This practice enhances biodiversity and food sovereignty by treating seeds as a shared heritage rather than private property. In urban planning, commons-oriented development is being tried as well – for example, Hastings Commons in England, a community-led redevelopment project that turned derelict buildings into affordable housing, coworking spaces, and cultural venues, managed by a local nonprofit trust. In this model, rents are reinvested in maintenance and community benefit, and residents have a say in management – effectively organizing a neighborhood as a commons. Such examples merge ecological, social, and economic aims and show the breadth of commons applications: from software to land to urban quarters.
This list is far from exhaustive, but it highlights the variety of commons: they function in high-tech global projects as well as in rural villages or city blocks. Wherever people organize themselves to jointly create or steward something, a commons can emerge – whether it’s intangible goods (knowledge, culture), natural resources, or civic infrastructure. These examples also serve as inspiration: they offer tested models that can be adapted elsewhere. Cities have learned from each other’s community garden programs; fishing co-op models have spread across different coasts, and so on. Through sharing of best practices – a process greatly aided by the internet and global networks like the Commons Strategies Group – a real commons movement is forming, in which activists, researchers, and community organizers worldwide are connected and learning from one another. This worldwide exchange (very much aligned with cloudsters’ global network approach) is helping to make the idea of commons more visible and viable as a universal framework for addressing common challenges.
Notably, the diverse examples above correspond to multiple domains of what cloudsters calls Commons Engineering disciplines: some focus on personal and community well-being (“Life Commons”), some on new business and economic models (“Business Commons”), others on neighborhoods and cities (“Urban Commons”), and others on ecological restoration and stewardship (“Regenerative Commons”). Cloudsters intentionally interweaves all these domains into a coherent ecosystem, recognizing that none exist in isolation. Progress in one domain often reinforces the others – e.g. commons-based businesses can support urban community projects; thriving urban commons improve conditions for individual well-being; widespread commons education helps form conscientious leaders, and so on. By connecting local commons initiatives to broader networks and knowledge (as seen in many of the examples), the commons movement operates as a system of systems – much as cloudsters itself does – linking life, business, urban, and regenerative efforts into a larger interoperable commons network.
7. Future Perspectives and Vision
In light of the global challenges of the 21st century – climate change, biodiversity loss, growing social inequalities, digital disruption – many view the commons approach as part of the solution. Future visions for commons revolve around how this age-old idea can be applied and evolved at scale to foster a more sustainable and just world.
One major vision is using commons principles to reduce inequalities. In practical terms, this could mean organizing fundamental life resources like water, energy, healthcare, or housing more as commons so that everyone has access. For example, some cities are debating whether water services should be run as public commons (a “water commons”) to guarantee clean water for all residents, rather than by profit-driven utilities. Similarly, communities could establish community land trusts to take land out of speculative markets and ensure affordable housing – residents become co-owners and cannot be easily displaced by real estate speculation. These models exist in pockets today and could be scaled up in the future. In the digital realm, the vision is to close the digital divide: commons-based internet access and open-source hardware could help equalize educational and economic opportunities globally.
On a macroeconomic level, commons thinkers propose bold ideas like a “commons sector” or public wealth funds. For instance, David Bollier and Silke Helfrich (who was a very well regarded guest at cloudsters LÜBECK till she died way to early) have suggested funneling a portion of economic output into building commons infrastructure. One idea is a data dividend or commons fund, where some of the profits of big tech companies (earned by exploiting our collective data) are redirected into a public fund that benefits everyone – potentially via a universal basic income or shared digital infrastructure. While these ideas are still exploratory, they indicate a direction: leveraging commons to distribute wealth and access more broadly. Ultimately, reducing inequality through commons also means empowerment: more commons approaches entail more communities taking control over resources and decisions, rather than being dependent on distant corporations or centralized authorities. Examples include villages gaining communal land rights or workers converting a company into a cooperative – these shifts shrink the socio-economic gap between elites and the grassroots by letting more people share in ownership and prosperity.
Another grand vision is the preservation of natural resources and respecting planetary boundaries. The environmental crisis makes it clear that our current growth-and-extraction economic model is not sustainable. Commons offer a framework for bringing humanity and nature back into balance. By managing resources as commons, users tend to become more conscious of limits and the true value of ecosystems. Future commons models could help enforce the planetary boundaries – for example, through global agreements that treat the atmosphere, oceans, and biodiversity as common heritage under joint care. There are calls for new forms of global commons governance: a binding treaty to protect the high seas (which the UN has initiated in 2023), or treating the global climate as a commons where all share responsibility. Scientist Johan Rockström and others speak of “Planetary Commons,” referring to critical Earth systems (climate, forests, oceans, ozone layer, freshwater cycles, etc.) that underpin life and have no national boundaries. If one of these systems collapses, everyone is affected. The vision is to establish a new paradigm of collective responsibility for these global commons. That would require unprecedented cooperation among nations, businesses, and civil society to limit exploitation and actively regenerate these systems. For instance, climate governance in a commons paradigm might treat the remaining carbon budget as a shared commons: emissions rights would be allocated equitably, and any unused allowances could flow into a global climate justice fund. Similarly, proposals suggest placing certain critical regions (the Arctic, the Amazon rainforest) under international trustee arrangements as commons for humanity, rather than letting any one country or company degrade them.
At local levels, the future vision emphasizes the regenerative aspect: commons should not only sustain resources but actively improve them. In agriculture, this aligns with regenerative farming that rebuilds soil; in cities, with urban commons that make neighborhoods more resilient to heat or floods (e.g. community-tended parks that cool the city and absorb stormwater). The concept of repair and circular economy dovetails here: when communities run repair cafés or sharing libraries, they extend product life and reduce waste, helping shift from a throwaway culture to a regenerative one. In the future, municipalities might actively support commons projects as part of their climate and sustainability strategies – for instance, providing grants for citizen-led urban forests, setting aside space for community gardens to improve climate resilience, or prioritizing community energy co-ops for grid access. In this way, commons approaches could become a mainstream tool for operating within planetary limits by focusing on conservation, restoration, and local circularity instead of endless extraction.
An exciting frontier is the cooperation between humans and technology for the planet’s benefit. Our future will be highly shaped by technology, but there’s a growing recognition that tech must be human-centered and earth-friendly. Here, commons and cooperation come to the fore. One vision is humans and AI working together on solving global problems in open, commons-based systems. Imagine worldwide sensor networks run as commons that make environmental data freely available (much like climate scientists already share data internationally). With AI assistance, those data could help local communities get early warnings for dangers (storms, droughts) or optimize commons management plans (an AI could suggest, say, an optimal harvesting schedule for a community forest to maximize CO₂ absorption). The key is that AI should not decide for people but with people: algorithms need to be transparent (“explainable AI”) and accountable to the community, subject to collective oversight.
One concrete future image is a global knowledge commons platform where human and machine intelligence merge. Envision a platform (perhaps an evolved wiki or a new system) where all solutions, best practices, and local data about commons are pooled. This platform would be continuously updated by people on the ground and enhanced by AI that helps integrate new research, detect patterns, and tailor information to users. For example, if a village wants to start a community water project, the system could instantly pull up similar cases from around the world, with AI summarizing what made them successful. People would still set the norms and make decisions, but AI could help manage the complexity and keep knowledge up-to-date – essentially a collaborative brain for the commons movement. In fact, a step toward this vision is the idea of turning this very Body of Knowledge (BoK) into a dynamic commons project itself. There are plans to host this BoK as a human-machine curated wiki on the cloudsters.net platform. That means not leaving it as a static document, but allowing a community of practitioners to continually expand it, with intelligent agents assisting – people can contribute experiences from their commons projects, discuss questions, and AI tools can suggest new relevant literature, flag inconsistencies, or provide translations for international users. The long-term vision is a symbiotic knowledge ecosystem where human creativity and judgment are combined with machine data-processing and speed, all aimed at advancing commons worldwide.
To succeed, such a system would itself need good governance: this knowledge commons would require community moderation and ethical guardrails (ensuring, for example, privacy protection and mitigation of AI biases). But if done right, it could be a powerful tool to boost our adaptive capacities. In an era of rapid change (record climate extremes, technological upheavals), we need institutions that learn and adjust continuously. A commons knowledge network, fueled by both human and AI contributions, could provide just that – always up-to-date, accessible to all, and oriented toward the common good.
In conclusion, commons as a universal framework have the potential to address many of our pressing problems by prioritizing cooperation over competition, sharing over hoarding, and long-term responsibility over short-term gain. Their deep historical roots give them resilience, and modern technologies give them new wings. The coming years and decades will test whether we can apply these principles on a large scale – in cities, nations, and globally. The vision is a world where shared resources are a central pillar of the economy and daily life; where we steward global commons like the climate as our collective heritage; and where humans and nature coexist as partners rather than adversaries. I am sure, that this article will contribute to that vision by making knowledge about commons widely available, while itself becoming a living commons – continually enriched in the flow between people and machines, practice and theory, local and global knowledge. The journey is just beginning, but the direction is clear: together for the commons – as the foundation of a sustainable civilization within the boundaries of our beautiful planet.
8. What this publication is for
This Substack is where I will share, sense, reflect, and document the work of building the cloudsters commons — openly, dialogically, and imperfectly.
You can expect:
Essays on frameworks for life, business, and regeneration
Patterns from our fieldwork and system designs
Reflections on responsibility, freedom, and future-making
Invitations to engage, pledge, learn, and build together
This isn’t a brand voice.
It’s a commons voice — and I hope, eventually, our voice.
9. Who this is for
People who feel the current system no longer fits — but still want to build
Founders. Parents. Designers. Educators. System thinkers.
Those who want to reimagine architecture — not just decorate the walls
If you’re still reading, you’re already part of this.
10. My invitation
📬 Subscribe, if this resonates.
💬 Comment, question, or challenge me.
🤝 If you're ready to support early: pledge your intention to become a founding member when we open paid content, learning formats, or co-creation spaces.
Let’s build the cloudsters commons —
not in theory, but in trust.
In dialogue.
In rhythm with life.
11. Who I am
I’ve spent the last 20+ years navigating transformation across industries, institutions, and communities.
Inside the system — as a business engineer and transformation strategist at CSC, SAP and Porsche.
Outside the system — as a founder of commons spaces, business angel, a listener, and a lifelong learner.
cloudsters is where all of that converges.
Not as a career step.
But as a life response.
Next up:
The difficult thing: Speaking a little about myself… :-)
– Holger
cloudster COMMONS