Nomadbase social contract

Revision as of 17:48, 24 November 2009 by Robino (talk | contribs) ({{she}})
Jump to: navigation, search

Content useful for travelling and accommodation should be moved from Sharewiki to

Please move this page to Nomadbase social contract.

Also to be migrated: nomadismnomadbasesSHEPast events

This page is the drafting of a social contract for the nomadbase project. Its aim is:

  • To state binding guidelines on what the project aims at and what it will never aim at
  • To make public the fact that nomadbase has an intention behind it.


List here social contracts from other projects that may inspire us in drafting the perfect one.

Here it goes

It is about the community

Nomadbase aims at facilitating community-building. It is to be run by the community, for the community. The interest of the community is the interest of nomadbase. Participants are encouraged to become involved in the decision that affect them.

Free of charge, now and forever

Participants cannot be demanded financial contribution.

Open source and transparency

Whether it is the software used, the cultural material used or produced, the intentions shared, being opened is a priority. No copyright. Nomadbase doesn't hide problems. It achieves the highest level of organisational transparency.

Total tolerance

Regardless of race, gender, socio-cultural background, and other criteria of discrimination.

My data, my life

Participants stay owner of the information they give. They are the one to decide what is done with it. In particular, nomadbase doesn't, and will never sell, share or distribute personal data without the explicit consent of their owner. Participants can hide, modify, export or remove any bit of it. They can cancel their participation anytime.

Bill of Response-Abilities

meant as a gift through intentional "ability to response", and not an expectation to comply / not as a restrictive "obligation". A parallel can be made with certain aspects of copylefted licenses : in such kind of libre licenses , the intention is to leave created value open to others to add value to. An encouragement to "positive liberty" : Wikipedia Article Positive liberty refers to having the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential, as opposed to negative liberty, which refers to freedom from restraint."

Interesting to see that on wikipedia the concept of Liberty is used. In Europe this is normally referred to Positive Freedom versus Negative Freedom. Positive Freedom ('Power To') is the basic ability to do things in relation to the space that is created collectively, whereas negative freedom/ liberty ('Power Over') is the ability to take space regardless of others. It would be interesting to see the conceptual difference between liberty and Freedom. --Robino 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Liberty is an ability to do something. Freedom is a philosophical concept. "I'm free to go as I want": liberty, "I'm free! Like a river! - S. Wonders": freedom. The two words are often used as synonyms and it is infortunate. They are sometimes contradictory. For example: "Taking away the liberty to kill improves the general freedom". --Sitarane 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I wonder what's wrong about S. Wonders. There are few things less free than a river.
Is a "P2P / Cooperative Individualist" approach one that manages to make no compromises regarding both positive and negative liberty, through potential for a choice of cooperation on each individual ? Do non cooperating individuals not have access to resources and opportunities produced through cooperation ? What happens to non-contributing individuals ? Is the choice to maintain Negative Liberty one of choice of non-cooperation, with the possibility to access Positive Liberty by creating ones own "forking" ( or moving ) into new/other spaces of inter-dependence ? "Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline" ( )
Are there parallels with Ghandi's Satyagraha and a transition to Festivalism ? -- Dante 19:54, 23 November 2009