Finding the shortest description of TransforMap

Here we work on the shortest possible self-description of transformap.

Jon: TransforMap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the commons transition.

Adrien: TransforMap is a socio-technical architecture to vizualize local alternatives to the mainstream.

Guiliana: TransforMap is an informal group of people, working towards mapping all alternative initiatives that have been/are beeing created in order to meet the need of people, not for profit.

About 14mmm: We are a collective of individuals and organizations that aim to visualize existing alternative economies and social innovation. Our goal is to provide standards tools and taxonomies to map the socio-ecological transformation happening on the ground. 1

Silke/Guiliana: TransforMap provides an online-platform to map the myriads of alternatives to the dominant economic model. It gives to everybody the opportunity to map all initiatives, communities, projects, worker-owned, self-managed or (at least) democratically organised companies dedicated to meeting people’s needs and serving the common good. It will visualize all places, spaces and networks that work on fostering cooperation and deepening human relationships through (co-)producing, exchanging, contributing and sharing, for a free, fair and sustainable world.
TransforMap invites all the existing mappings to cooperate for an open solution to map the plenty of alternatives based on a common taxonomy, Free Software and a standardised APIs and published under an Open Data License.

There are Plenty of Alternatives (TAPAs). TransforMap makes them visible.
(This proposal has an own Thread)

This is a Wiki-Thread: We try to collect your answers in this text. Delete your answer, if you feel well represented. Edit your answer, if there is something to clarify.

I would suggest that we make an updated synthesis of all the materials we have (add stuff below by editing the post):

@sagaskew @Giuliana : that could be a process the communications circle could drive? (by the way, you could update your pseudo to make it a bit more transparent to find it - you can add your first name to your profile… :wink: )

I don’t know if there is a text describing what we are doing, but there is the old name: Mapping all alternatives. In fact we want to map all alternative initiatives that have been/ are beeing created in order to meet the need of people, not for profit.

1 Like

@Giuliana: Reicht dir der Vorschlag von Silke ? Soweit ich gelesen habe, ist der mit dir abgestimmt.

Ja, ich finde ihn gut. Jemand hat geschrieben, die Beschreibung ist ihm zu sehr auf Wirtschaft fokussiert. Bitte, ich bin fasziniert von Ansätzen wie die Tiefenökologie, die sich decken mit den Lehren von einem Eckhart Tolle oder von Prem Rawat. Aber wenn wir darüber reden werden wir als Esotheriker verschrien oder/und es entwickelt sich eine nie endend wollende Diskussion über die richtige Lehre und die droht uns alle zu überfluten und zu lähmen. Gerade weil ich weiß, dass alles mit allem verbunden ist, leide ich wenn Menschen auf der Welt verhungern ,vertrieben werden, unendlich leiden, wenn Menschen und Natur ausgebeutet werden, bis nichts mehr übrig bleibt. Deswegen beschäftige ich mich mit dem OIKOS, mit unserem gemeinsamen Haus, mit den Lebensgrundlagen auf unserem Planeten und kümmere mich darum, dass die Bedürfnisse aller befriedigt werden. Wie das geht? Praktisch, indem man die Ökonomie, ja, gemeint als gemeinsame, organisierte Anstrengungen, um die Bedürfnisse aller zu befriedigen, anders organisiert, gerecht, lokal, von unten, selbstverwaltet und selbstbestimmt und auch indem man anders miteinander umgeht, indem man sich umeinander kümmert.

1 Like

@Giuliana Der Einwand war von mir. Ich dachte dabei an weniger esotherische Dinge wie zum Beispiel pädagogische Projekte, die versuchen würdevoll mit den Kindern umzugehen. Oder aber auch Demokratische Schulen. Auch ökologische Projekte, wie Projekte zur Saatguterhaltung, Humuspflege und ähnliches. Solche Projekte sind öfters ökonomisch traditionell aufgestellt, genügen keinem der Kriterien “worker-owned, self-managed or (at least) democratically organised companies” und sollten trotzdem in die Karte, denke ich. Deinen vorherigen Ansatz “been/are beeing created in order to meet the need of people, not for profit” fand ich da umgreifender.

4 posts were split to a new topic: Careing Economies

Du hast eigentlich recht. Knapper und umfassender.

I moved 11 posts to a new topic: TransforMap and MMM

Yesterday, when philosophising about the general TransforMap stack, the following came to my mind:

TransforMap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the commons transition.

1 Like

this ir really good!

Yep. Good.

To encompass the larger scope of TransforMap, I suggest:

Transformap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the societal transformations

With two minor alternatives:

Transformap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the undergoing societal transformations


Transformap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the societal transformations in place

“the societal transformations” -> I clearly see your point, @gandhiano , but also the neoliberal transformation is a societal transformation, we need an attribute for the societal transformation.

Yes, and in my perspective the points associated to the neoliberal transformation should also be visible on the map. Not in the hegemonic, but under our narratives.

A nice reading on this aspect is in this article on the last EcologĂ­a PolĂ­tica on Cartography and Conflicts. Unfortunately only in Castellano.

Ihr habt schon auch den E-Mail-Betreff von @dreusser s Nachricht von vor vier Tagen im Sinn, oder?

I don’t like that. Commons is very clear. This term is very broad.

We need a very broad term, since 14mmm did not depart from the commons movement alone, but from a broader set of movements, which we wanted to reach to not have yet another map that only a part of the alternatives out there use. Even though myself would see many of the initiatives we related to, like CSAs or food cooperatives, as contributing to commoning processes, it is not obvious that the people in these initiatives identify themselves as being part of the commons transition (the singular here makes it even more problematic).

I think strategically and politically it is more appropriate for TransforMap to use a more agnostic term - this was in fact why we excluded last year also degrowth, transition, etc. from our OSM layer/name and opted for the prefix “Transfor” (from transformation, @almereyda certainly knows where this discussion can be traced back). I find changing now the term of our focus is not only counterproductive (since it took very long to reach a consensuns), but also risks putting our project back in a bubble of a part of the movement (which was precisely what we wanted to overcome), because many will not see themselves as part of the commons, but of something else (transition, food sovereignty, degrowth, …), even if it that for us means the commons transition.

1 Like

Also see

"since 14mmm did not depart from the commons movement alone"
Thanks, @gandhiano . This is very strong point and I confess: in terms of public perception I think you are right.
Why do I like the coinage of a “commons transition” nevertheless? Because I tend to see the commons as a paradigm, a worldview, a matrix so to say to structurally enable transition/ solidarity /degrowth / Entschleunigung / p2p / openess and what so ever. What I means is not “commons” as in “the commons movement” (yes, my thinking evolves ;-))
Commons as opposed to proprietarian/ dichotomical/ mecanistic/ top-down etc, as an approach, a relatational term and methodology.

But as I said at the beginning. Gualter formulates a concern that needs to be taken into account!