Goal: Local Decision

One of the most widespread, and inadequately discussed, ills of the modern era is that the decisions that effect us mostly get made far away. Improvements in manufacturing, commerce, government and technology often have the effect of moving the decision-making elsewhere.

Whatever the merits of those making the decisions, they don't know us or our circumstances and their interests may not be aligned with ours.

Tools for resilient society should increase independence to act and decide locally.

To achieve this, the system must be simple, open, peer-to-peer.

Open is, of course, the mantra of the open source movement, simple makes it available to the rest of us and for the rest of our lives.

While the universality of CommonAccord will likely drive some kinds centralization, it's simplicity has the potential to reduce centralization. It is hard to see which of these two effects will predominate - and it may be that they cascade.

Some, hoped-for forms of decentralization include:

• We can make our own rules. The "law commons" of David Bollier.
• We can hold up our rules to others. A conversation with Herbert Kawadza about "Ubuntu" (the original, not the software).
• We on the front line can roll our own. The unifying theme of CommonAccord is that I, as non-technical user, should be able to achieve my ends. I know the problem, I'll take responsibility for the solution. Depending on others involves filters and delays that reduce my bull to boullion. (Le Carre) This is related to the Stallman notion of free speech. Applied to non-programmers. The hubless nature of CommonAccord is also consistent with blockchain ideas of independence.

Open source software, particularly as practiced using flexible forking of git, is community action by direct democracy. The experience and methods can be transposed into other domains.